# The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment



## Lakhota

Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!

Popular vote - not acres!







In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.

U.S. Electoral Vote Map


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

You know the drill.  Change it.

I believe it is you people who have outlasted their welcome, not the Constitution.


----------



## cnelsen

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!


And like the Second Amendment, if you try to sabotage it, it means war.


----------



## skookerasbil

This is what happens when you live your whole life in Irrelevantstown, USA in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

You come up with shit for message boards that nobody cares about.

s0n....time to get on that horse of yours and like Jimmy Stewart once said, "See the world!". At least go visit a major city......must have one within 1,000 miles of you!!

Have you even ever seen a fireworks show s0n?


----------



## Tank

Indians are even more outdated


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!




It's not, it's based on moral god fearing people living in the  "fly over counties " vs the immoral devil worshiper social Marxist pinko commies living in blue citys


Good vs Evil


It's just that simple
.


----------



## 12icer

The electoral college is based on each states rights to have a say. You have a branch of congress with popular vote as it's basis. That is the House of Representatives. That is why California, New York and Illinois have such a high number of electors. The rest of the states would have NO say whatsoever in who was the President If it was a popular vote election. No state other than those three would ever vote to make popular vote the basis for presidential election in a constitutional convention. It would remove every vestige of equal protection from their states. Only a stupid liberal igmo would want popular vote to elect a president because then the president would always come from one of three or four states. This is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY for a reason. The last election shows WHY it is so. The rape and pillage of the American working class, and the systematic destruction of an entire race of the people in this country have been stopped. I think that is well worth keeping the reason it happened.


----------



## Lakhota

Flash said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
Click to expand...


Yeah? Well, you know, I'm not just like a lazy bowler on welfare, man!


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

12icer said:


> The electoral college is based on each states rights to have a say. You have a branch of congress with popular vote as it's basis. That is the House of Representatives. That is why California, New York and Illinois have such a high number of electors. The rest of the states would have NO say whatsoever in who was the President If it was a popular vote election. No state other than those three would ever vote to make popular vote the basis for presidential election in a constitutional convention. It would remove every vestige of equal protection from their states. Only a stupid liberal igmo would want popular vote to elect a president because then the president would always come from one of three or four states. This is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY for a reason. The last election shows WHY it is so. The rape and pillage of the American working class, and the systematic destruction of an entire race of the people in this country have been stopped. I think that is well worth keeping the reason it happened.


Great post.


----------



## Dot Com

r u really this dumb Lakhota 

You didn't seem to mind it when 0 won


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




*Popular vote - not acres!*

After we have nationwide voter ID, boot 20 million illegal aliens, secure the border, stop all other forms of Dem vote fraud, end income tax withholding and hold all elections the day after taxes are due in one lump sum....
then we can discuss using the popular vote.


----------



## Lakhota

So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


----------



## Dot Com

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> You're insane! You're just an Indian who's pissed off because guns defeated your people and White people of European heritage took y'all's acreage, lol.
Click to expand...

yep. She's just a pissed- off injun. Most injuns on the interwebz are conservative though.


----------



## SavannahMann

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Dot Com

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


they gave you remedies you idiot. Try reading the Constitution sometime


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!



So, thanks to the founders foresight -you're going to get fucked tomorrow!


----------



## Lastamender

Lakhota said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Well, you know, I'm not just like a lazy bowler on welfare, man!
Click to expand...

So you don't bowl?


----------



## SavannahMann

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!



Wait I thought we elected Trump. If we were going to elect Hillary we would be getting really screwed. I mean if Hillary was just corrupt that would be one thing. But she's corrupt and incompetent. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## 12icer

Btw the statement you made about the states is wrong, Each state decides how to disburse their electors, they are not all one take all. The dimshit scum have tried to make all of the states that usually vote for them WTA states simply because they ALWAYS LOSE if each elector is made to vote as each district votes. just as the counties in the country voted 90% for Trump and 10% for shitbitch. If you are really NAtive AMerican do your people elect the head of the Tribal council by popular vote? or do the members of the council decide their leader?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Dictatorship by popular vote.


----------



## Dot Com

nice troll thread lakota


----------



## Lakhota

SavannahMann said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!


----------



## pismoe

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------   hope so Lakhota , no lube and with a vengeance  !!


----------



## Dot Com

12icer said:


> Btw the statement you made about the states is wrong, Each state decides how to disburse their electors, they are not all one take all. The dimshit scum have tried to make all of the states that usually vote for them WTA states simply because they ALWAYS LOSE if each elector is made to vote as each district votes. just as the counties in the country voted 90% for Trump and 10% for shitbitch. If you are really NAtive AMerican do your people elect the head of the Tribal council by popular vote? or do the members of the council decide their leader?


cuss much n00b?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



Looks like an issue for the next Congress to vote on.


----------



## Dot Com

OP is not looking fwrd to admitting defeat tomorrow


----------



## skookerasbil

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!




Nah s0n......this arrived a good 6 weeks ago.................

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]

Tomorrow is but a formality.


----------



## Lakhota

Lastamender said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Well, you know, I'm not just like a lazy bowler on welfare, man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't bowl?
Click to expand...


Shoot pool - but no bowling.


----------



## shockedcanadian

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



I think it is ingenious.  The confusion has come because the federal government has over reached for too long, denying states the independence and autonomy that America intended.

If you want a centralized system of governance just head to Canada.


----------



## Dot Com

You should have brought this up right after 0 won his 2nd- term


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Washington Redskin
There is no reason to include rural states in the voting if there is just a popular vote determining presidential elections, the EC is not changing anytime soon. Live with it bed wetter


----------



## skookerasbil

Diary of a Depressed Liberal


----------



## skookerasbil

On post-election Twitter, offers of emotional and mental health advice


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Lakhota said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!
Click to expand...

Lay off the firewater, injun!


----------



## skookerasbil

These Mental Health Resources Are Completely Free Of Cost


----------



## skookerasbil

I gotta admit.......when I joined this message board 7 years ago, I never thought it'd be this much of a  hoot!!


----------



## SmokeALib

Lol if it doesn't fit a libstains agenda - it's outdated.


----------



## BluesLegend

These liberal clowns don't have the votes to change the Constitution, thank God the founders drafted such strong protections for the people from tyrannical extremists like liberals, pound sound libs.


----------



## skookerasbil

How Donald Trump Is Creating A Mental Health Crisis


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Lakhota said:


> The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.



  Is it your position, then, that the interests of small states should be drowned out by those of large states?

  In any event, if you think that the Electoral College, the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution is _“outdated”_, then the remedy is the same—try to get a new amendment ratified to overturn those parts of the Constitution that you do not like.  Simply refusing to obey the Constitution, as those of you on the left *wrong* frequently demand, is nothing but lawlessness, that puts you on the same level as the lowest of criminals.


----------



## Avatar4321

The second amendment exists for the people to defend themselves from tyrants like you who want to overthrow the republic


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tank said:


> Indians are even more outdated



  Indeed.  Perhaps there are elements of their cultures that are worth preserving, but their societies were defeated and all but wiped out, because they were primitive, atechnical savages who had no chance against more modern enemies bearing more modern technology.  What was left of them ought to have assimilated into the new society that was created in their place.


----------



## Harry Dresden

43 posts and not one backing lakota....even fucking dottie the marshmellow is getting on lakota...and he is as big a lib as lakota is!....lol....


----------



## TheOldSchool

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.


----------



## Avatar4321

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!



Someone clearly didn't tell him. Clinton lost. We wont be screwed


----------



## MarathonMike

The Electoral College is like Capitalism. Neither is a perfect system. They just happen to be better than all the alternatives.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Dot Com said:


> r u really this dumb Lakhota



  Well, he is, but so are you, if you're too stupid/lazy to spell out simple words such as _“Are”_ or _“you”_.  He may be dumb, but at least he's literate.


----------



## Avatar4321

TheOldSchool said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
Click to expand...


The federal government would never go after native Americans


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Toddsterpatriot said:


> After we have nationwide voter ID, boot 20 million illegal aliens, secure the border, stop all other forms of Dem vote fraud, end income tax withholding and hold all elections the day after taxes are due in one lump sum....
> then we can discuss using the popular vote.



  Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.  Only a Constitutional amendment can change it.


----------



## Hossfly

I don't think many Liberals know what the procedure is to change an Amendment. If they did they wouldn't harp on it all the live long day. Or even bring it up.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, thanks to the founders foresight -you're going to get fucked tomorrow!



  And deservedly so.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Still griping about this? Why? Because the cities would give your side a distinct advantage?
And I was under the impression you libs were opposed to the disenfranchisement of voters


----------



## tyroneweaver

Tank said:


> Indians are even more outdated


the stypen certainly is.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Lakhota said:


> California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!



  The Constitution says otherwise.  And being this nation's highest law, it trumps your irrelevant opinion.


----------



## thereisnospoon

12icer said:


> The electoral college is based on each states rights to have a say. You have a branch of congress with popular vote as it's basis. That is the House of Representatives. That is why California, New York and Illinois have such a high number of electors. The rest of the states would have NO say whatsoever in who was the President If it was a popular vote election. No state other than those three would ever vote to make popular vote the basis for presidential election in a constitutional convention. It would remove every vestige of equal protection from their states. Only a stupid liberal igmo would want popular vote to elect a president because then the president would always come from one of three or four states. This is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY for a reason. The last election shows WHY it is so. The rape and pillage of the American working class, and the systematic destruction of an entire race of the people in this country have been stopped. I think that is well worth keeping the reason it happened.


There is no use in trying to explain the logic and reasoning of the EC to a lib.
You're talking to an irrational emoting left winger who cannot accept the fact that one of theirs lost an election.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Hossfly said:


> I don't think many Liberals know what the procedure is to change an Amendment. If they did they wouldn't harp on it all the live long day. Or even bring it up.


They don't like that procedure either. They also think it's "not fair"..


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


No...You're fucked. 
Fucked by the peaceful and civilized transfer of power from one individual and body of representatives to another.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


BTW, ya left wing moon bat radical, the process worked as it was intended to work.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


Your side should have nominated a better more electable candidate.


----------



## Lakhota

thereisnospoon said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, ya left wing moon bat radical, the process worked as it was intended to work.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.


----------



## Dot Com

Bob Blaylock said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> r u really this dumb Lakhota
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he is, but so are you, if you're too stupid/lazy to spell out simple words such as _“Are”_ or _“you”_.  He may be dumb, but at least he's literate.
Click to expand...

its the internetz n00b STFU Bob Blaylock what r u? like 80 yrs old gramps?


----------



## Dot Com

Bob Blaylock said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> After we have nationwide voter ID, boot 20 million illegal aliens, secure the border, stop all other forms of Dem vote fraud, end income tax withholding and hold all elections the day after taxes are due in one lump sum....
> then we can discuss using the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.  Only a Constitutional amendment can change it.
Click to expand...

Capt Obvious to the rescue


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map





Yo stupid fuck

Venezuela has neither a right to bear arms nor an EC

Hasta la Vista, dude.

.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheOldSchool said:


> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.



  He'd shoot his own eye out.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, ya left wing moon bat radical, the process worked as it was intended to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah....It did.
Now for the last time. Get this through your peyote fogged liberal skull. 
The intended purpose for the use of an Elector system is so that each of the 50 states has a voice in deciding the leader of the country.  Period. 
You don't like it because this time it did not work to your side's advantage. So you screech "NO FAIR! We want it CHANGED!!!!"
Go stand in a corner and cry. Please do it quietly. Nobody wants to hear your complain and bellyache.


----------



## Lakhota

*The Reason for the Electoral College*

Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?

A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

*As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.


----------



## Lakhota

TheOldSchool said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
Click to expand...


I am.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!


This illustrates the astounding ignorance of your statement...

The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.


Hillary’s margin of victory in [California] was 4.3 million votes – or 61.5%


And therein lies the rub. The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.


If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 *million*.

Want more evidence that Clinton was a “regional candidate?” Look at these numbers compiled by IBD:

Number of states won:

Trump: 30

Clinton: 20
_________________

Trump: +10



Number of electoral votes won:

Trump: 306

Clinton: 232
_________________

Trump: + 68



Ave. margin of victory in winning states:

Trump: 56%

Clinton: 53.5%
_________________

Trump: + 2.5 points


Popular vote total outside California:

Trump: 58,474,401

Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________

Trump: + 1.4 million

Hillary's Popular Vote Win Came ENTIRELY From Just One State


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.




We need to repeal the so-called 17th "Amendment"

The senators should be elected by the individual states.

.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
Click to expand...

Folks....this is _astounding_, repulsive progressive hypocrisy. The little girl who rails against the 2nd Amendment 24x7 claims she is "armed".


----------



## DOTR

12icer said:


> Only a stupid liberal igmo would want popular vote to elect a president



  only a stupid liberal igmo AFTER Hillary loses. There were no complaints before.


----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Folks....this is _astounding_, repulsive progressive hypocrisy. The little girl who rails against the 2nd Amendment 24x7 claims she is "armed".
Click to expand...


I am a guy who has been a hunter and gun enthusiast my entire life.  I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.  So is the NRA gun nutter mentality.

*How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!


Lakhota "logic" - laws against rape are like, oh my Gawd, so outdated! It's time to move past that antiquated ideal and make it legal to rape women.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Folks....this is _astounding_, repulsive progressive hypocrisy. The little girl who rails against the 2nd Amendment 24x7 claims she is "armed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a guy who has been a hunter and gun enthusiast my entire life.  I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.  So is the NRA gun nutter mentality.
Click to expand...

Wow...way to double-down, _stupid_. If the 2nd Amendment is "obsolete" then why haven't you surrendered your firearms and had them destroyed?


----------



## P@triot

TheOldSchool said:


> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.


And here is the PoS ToS once again advocating violence against Donald Trump and the federal government. I _really_ hope the Secret Service brings this nutjob in before he kills someone.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Yeah? Well, you know, I'm not just like a lazy bowler on welfare, man!


No. Instead, you're a typical lazy progressive on welfare.


----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Folks....this is _astounding_, repulsive progressive hypocrisy. The little girl who rails against the 2nd Amendment 24x7 claims she is "armed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a guy who has been a hunter and gun enthusiast my entire life.  I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.  So is the NRA gun nutter mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...way to double-down, _stupid_. If the 2nd Amendment is "obsolete" then why haven't you surrendered your firearms and had them destroyed?
Click to expand...


Because the 2nd Amendment allows me not to - even though I'm not in a militia.

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
_​*Is the Second Amendment obsolete?*


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Lakhota said:


> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.


The electoral college provided by the founders guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president. What the hell did your Indian founders guarantee your people?


----------



## Contumacious

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
Click to expand...




EXACTLY..


Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.


.


----------



## Lakhota

Contumacious said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!



Well, actually some think they avoided getting screwed.

To bad Lakkyhota......sucks to be you.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
Click to expand...




Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



But they'll be around long after you are gone and finally being the compost you are destined to become.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
Click to expand...




BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS


NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES



*As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.*
*

.*


----------



## Lakhota

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
Click to expand...


You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
Click to expand...


You drinking again ?

You sound more stupid that usual.

Why don't you explain how they are a danger.


----------



## Lastamender

Lakhota said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? Well, you know, I'm not just like a lazy bowler on welfare, man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't bowl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoot pool - but no bowling.
Click to expand...


Collect welfare?


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
Click to expand...




As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.


I need an AK47 with a 60-round magazine.


There are a lot of stupid retarded motherfuckers out there


There was very little difference between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams


The difference between Trump and Hillary .is the same as the one between life and death.


.


.


----------



## Norman

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! My candidate didn't win!

Edition #252342

Will they ever get over it?


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




Sure,  you say that now, but had Hillary won the electorial votes it would not be an issue with you.  All these threads should have started before the election not after, and anyways,  both Candidates knew what they were getting into before hand. Th eelectoral college was no supprise to anyone.   Hillary herself defeated Sanders even though he got more votes than she did. She got the super delegates, so why is that fair?   Time for her to pack it in, sorry.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Lakhota said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reason for the Electoral College*
> 
> Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?
> 
> A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.
> 
> The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could“sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
> 
> *As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” *The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
> 
> In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
> 
> The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org
> 
> So, the framers of the Constitution didn't trust democracy.  How nice.  In reality, the Electoral College doesn't protect us from anything - since it is mostly a formality and most electors are loyal members of the party that selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
Click to expand...

 I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.


----------



## Yarddog

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> I need an AK47 with a 60-round magazine.
> 
> 
> There are a lot of stupid retarded motherfuckers out there
> 
> 
> There was very little difference between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
> 
> 
> The difference between Trump and Hillary .is the same as the one between life and death.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Spot on ! and it would have been unfair to the unemployed workers in the midwest if California Got to dictate all of their futures.  I dont trust the votes coming out of San Jose and Los Angeles.  its easy enough for Illegals to vote and they actually had a lot at stake in this election.   These psudo - Liberals ( which they are not really Liberals) are incapable of understanding the concept


----------



## Contumacious

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
Click to expand...



I do not know why the stupid fuck chose the handle "lakota" 

The Lakota Indians were proud independent people who took shit from no one.

He should change his handle to something effeminate like "lilypad"


.


.


----------



## Lakhota

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! The electoral college guarantees us a 100% United States when electing a president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
Click to expand...


Not necessary - but as written it should only apply to weapons in existence at the time it was ratified.






And not shit like this...






Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.


----------



## Yarddog

Contumacious said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know why the stupid fuck chose the handle "lakota"
> 
> The Lakota Indians were proud independent people who took shit from no one.
> 
> He should change his handle to something effeminate like "lilypad"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I thought Lakhota was a female poster? no?


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessary - but as written it should only apply to weapons in existence at the time it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not shit like this...
Click to expand...




It applies to the right of FREE PEOPLE to defend their lives by any means necessary.


By your stupid logic we should be communicating with each other using smoke signals


Shut the fuck up


.


----------



## Contumacious

Yarddog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know why the stupid fuck chose the handle "lakota"
> 
> The Lakota Indians were proud independent people who took shit from no one.
> 
> He should change his handle to something effeminate like "lilypad"
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Lakhota was a female poster? no?
Click to expand...



Dunno.

.


----------



## Lakhota

Things are really messed up.


----------



## Norman

Lakhota said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY..
> 
> 
> Otherwise , NY and California, the most leftist states , will be the ones electing a president.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president.  One person - one vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT, I DON'T TRUST YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
> 
> 
> NOT UNTIL A BLOODY CIVIL WAR GETS RID OF THE STUPID SONS OF BITCHES WHO CLAIM THAT FREE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES
> 
> 
> 
> *As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fucking NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights!  No one needs an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine - or should even be allowed to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessary - but as written it should only apply to weapons in existence at the time it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not shit like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.
Click to expand...


Good thing that the constitution doesn't tell you how to live then...

Only thing it does is that it obstructs the federal government from taking away the state's rights. USA is a republic, if you don't like that, move to Somalia.


----------



## Lakhota

Some clarification would be nice...


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Things are really messed up.





You should NOT have to show an ID to purchase pseudoephedrine. That is just another stupid regulation by the welfare/warfare police state.

The people of Aurora Colorado should have had an UNRESTRICTED   right to bear arms 


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> After we have nationwide voter ID, boot 20 million illegal aliens, secure the border, stop all other forms of Dem vote fraud, end income tax withholding and hold all elections the day after taxes are due in one lump sum....
> then we can discuss using the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.  Only a Constitutional amendment can change it.
Click to expand...


*Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.* 

I know, but after my ideas are implemented, Dems will never win the White House again and they'd be lucky to get 25% of the House and Senate.


----------



## Lakhota

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.


----------



## HenryBHough

Does anyone doubt for even a minute on which side of this issue our Snowflakes would have come down had Hillary won the EC vote but lost the popular vote?

There are hypocrites.
There are fucking hypocrites.
And then there are liberal hypocrites....but that's a redundancy so let's just call them turds.


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Change it. I hate whining when you know the rules


----------



## HenryBHough

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.



Pity yours is half-vast.


----------



## Lakhota

I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Some clarification would be nice...





ONLY the warfare state claims to have the right to use WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


ONLY THE WARFARE STATE CLAIMED THAT THEY HAD TO DESTROY HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI BECAUSE OF WHAT HIROHITO DID.


.


----------



## HenryBHough

I don't like nuclear weapons.

But I could change my mind if somebody fine-tuned one so it killed only liberals.

But killed them slowly and painfully......


----------



## Lakhota

For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.

*Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.




"Reasonable" means DISARMED  to you stupid motherfuckers

"REASONABLE" means that government bureaucrats get to pick and choose who has a right to defend their lives.

FUCK YOU.


.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment




THE LANGUAGE OF THE 2A IS ONLY CONFUSING TO THOSE DETERMINED TO USURPED , DETERMINED TO ENSLAVED


WHAT PART OF FREE PEOPLE YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND


.


----------



## Lakhota

This is the mentality of today's NRA.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> This is the mentality of today's NRA.




This the mentality of today's leftwing democrats







.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*









Only if you're an idiot.  To those of us with a greater than 4th grade education it is quite clear, and understandable.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


>


----------



## ninja007

Lakhota said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!
Click to expand...


"only" 55? one state making up over 20 % of EV's? All other 49 making only 80%? Thats equates to an avg of only 1.63% each of a vote! (EV)- for every other state! AND YOU STILL GOT CREAMED! Thats not even including all the EV's in deep blue states dems own every election. Libs truly live in only a few states in a few cities. YOU are the minority libtard.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've seen similar movies.


----------



## ninja007

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've seen similar movies.
Click to expand...



except we dont chop of heads and blow people up shit head.


----------



## Lakhota

NaziCon Scalia said it pretty well - but he didn't go far enough.

*From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

_"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've seen similar movies.
Click to expand...







This is the world you seem to desire....


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> NaziCon Scalia said it pretty well - but he didn't go far enough.
> 
> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
> Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.
> 
> More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia








Scalia a Nazi?  Hmmm.  It's YOU that want guns taken away from civilians.  That makes YOU the nazi, dipshit.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've seen similar movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the world you seem to desire....
Click to expand...


After what Native Americans have been through, I can't imagine that you would think that.  Nope, I just want an updated 2nd Amendment and reasonable gun control laws.  I don't fear for a need to have heavy weaponry to protect me from the government.  I can't fight professional soldiers armed with machine guns, tanks, fighter jets/bombers, and chemical weapons.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NaziCon Scalia said it pretty well - but he didn't go far enough.
> 
> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
> Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.
> 
> More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia a Nazi?  Hmmm.  It's YOU that want guns taken away from civilians.  That makes YOU the nazi, dipshit.
Click to expand...


How much do you know about Scalia?

Scalia’s Fascist Roots Run Deep


----------



## fncceo

Lakhota said:


> updated 2nd Amendment and reasonable gun control



Reasonable gun control would be significantly less gun control than with which we are currently burdened. 

Land of the free, Baby


----------



## fncceo

Lakhota said:


> How much do you know about Scalia?



Fake news.  Nyet interested.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.



  …Or dildos.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Lakhota said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you wish the 2nd Amendment should say 'The Right To Bear Bows And Arrows'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary - but as written it should only apply to weapons in existence at the time it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not [Lakhota] like this...
Click to expand...


  So, the, does the First Amendment cover your right to express yourself on an internet-based forum such as this, based on technology that is far beyond anything that the authors of the Constitution could have possibly imagined?  Or is it limited to protecting your right only to express yourself in a speech standing on a soapbox in the public square, or published with an old hand-operated printing press using movable type that had to be laboriously set by hand?




Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.



  Only to those who refuse to acknowledge the clear meaning that is explicitly written into it; and who are desperate to _“interpret”_ it far away from that meaning and from the intent of its authors.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*



  Again, only to those who refuse to acknowledge the clear meaning in it.

  It's very simple.  It states a purpose, enumerates a right, identifies this right as belonging to the people, and forbids government from touching this right.

  It is only _“confusing”_ to those who do not wish to see the right upheld which it affirms; and who want government to illegally violate that right.  It is only _“confusing”_ to tyrants and criminals, and to those who openly take the side of tyrants and criminal against that of law-abiding citizens.


----------



## BluesLegend

Hossfly said:


> I don't think many Liberals know what the procedure is to change an Amendment. If they did they wouldn't harp on it all the live long day. Or even bring it up.



The libs know they don't have the votes to change it, hence they try to undermine the Constitution via mob rule public opinion, unconstitutional laws and restrictions, activist judges, lying, pretty much any other means.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!



LOLOLOLOL

(Chokes on Twinkie)

You're accusing people who founded a country, which has gone 240 years without dissolution, of having a lack of foresight? The third iteration of King George would have been proud of you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!
Click to expand...


There goes the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Crixus

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




Blah, blah, blah, the stupid twat lost and lost big. It would have been the same no matter how the game was played. The liberal agenda was resoundingly rejected and will be over and over again.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
Click to expand...


With what?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> Duh, the people would be the ones electing a president. One person - one vote!



Don't they already do that?


----------



## cnelsen

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


You got fucked when out of all the millions of other sperm to choose from, it was you.


----------



## easyt65

*The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment*

Anyone who says stupid shit like this doesn't understand what it is, doesn't understand why it was created, and doesn't understand that it just successfully accomplished what it was brilliantly intended to do.

'Hillary lost' is not a good enough reason to scrap the Electoral College, silly Liberals.


----------



## SavannahMann

Lakhota said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people in other states should just shut up and do what California tells them to?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California only has 55 electoral votes.  However, all states should just shut the fuck up when someone wins the national popular vote!
Click to expand...


That's right, California has 55 electoral votes. But your proposal would give all the power to three or four states. Where a majority of people vote the way you want. 

There is a problem with this. When any contest is held, there are rules laid out ahead of time. Nobody goes to a baseball game and waits until the end of the game to decide by what standard someone won. You don't enter a marathon and wait until the guy you want is in the lead before deciding he's run enough and is the winner. 

Everyone knew going into this election how the winner would be decided. I like most people thought it would be Hillary. I am very happy I was wrong, since Hillary is an abominable candidate. I'm also happy to say that I voted against Hillary twice this election. 

Now, here is the rub. Everyone knew the rules going in, that the person who got 270 electoral votes, won. Everyone knew that it would be possible to get that and the popular vote might not go that way. The "nightmare" scenario for Democrats was that Hillary would win the Electoral vote, but that Trump could win the popular vote. If that had happened, I'd be here typing much the same thing with the names swapped around. Oh I'd be sad that Hillary won, because she is an incompetent ass.

The nightmare scenario was actually reversed. Trump won the electoral vote, and Hillary won the popular vote. Hillary would be the winner if the game was decided by that, but at this point it's like screaming your team won the baseball game because they got more base hits. The game is decided by people making it to home plate, not first base. 

Hillary ignored flyover country. She didn't learn anything in 2008. She approached this election like it was a coronation, not a nomination. We owed it to her, and so far all the narratives have fallen by the wayside. 

The idea that it was Racists who elected Trump went by the wayside when a third of minorities voted for Trump was dropped. The idea that uneducated men voted for Trump was shot down when 54% of college educated men voted for Trump. So now we're left with the last two straws grasped by the Hillary People who don't want to admit reality. Now all of a sudden the Popular vote matters. Bah. The last one, that Russia hacked the election. 

No one is claiming the emails were faked. So it isn't like the Dan Rather debacle. All we're left with is that the arrogance many of us saw in the campaign was in fact much much worse. The disdain that the Democrats viewed the people with was astonishing. Then there is the DNC emails, which show a disturbing level of manipulation in the primary. Those of us who were Bernie supporters already knew it of course, and that's why many of us voted for Trump. Besides, Trump was closer to Bernie on a few key issues, like Trade. 

Now, if you want the Popular vote to be the way we decide the election, here is what you do. Get congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That is actually the most likely of the steps to come about. Because your next step is nearly impossible. Convince two thirds of the states to make themselves irrelevant by ratifying the amendment. 

Now, if you want to win the next election here is what you do. Don't select the candidate at the party level before the first primary. Don't cheat during the primary to help your selected candidate. Oh, and this is the biggie. Don't ignore the people who put you into office.


----------



## Claudette

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



The EC was set up so States like Cali and NY don't decide who the next POTUS is. If it were by popular vote then those two states and a few others would decide every election and anyone not living in those two States would have votes that count for nothing.

If Hillary had won the EC You wouldn't say a word about the PV if Trump had won that.

The one and only reason you posted another of you lamo threads is because Hillary lost.

The FF were smarter than you will ever be.

Dumbass.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


*"The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment"*

And the First Amendment is a tad more dated than both...So stop using it


----------



## candycorn

The electoral college is fine the way it is.  I think we should make it to where you have to win the majority of electoral votes AND the plurality of the Popular Vote.  Simply on the principle that the popular vote should have a direct effect by statute on the outcome of the election but not be the sole deciding factor. 

But those wanting to do away with it are being incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## Flash

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Dictatorship by popular vote.




Rule of the mob.  Thank goodness our Founding Fathers understood that.


----------



## Flash

TheOldSchool said:


> [Q
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.



Just give the Indian some fire water.  He will get drunk and forget all about his little rebellion.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> After what Native Americans have been through, I can't imagine that you would think that.  Nope, I just want an updated 2nd Amendment and reasonable gun control laws.  I don't fear for a need to have heavy weaponry to protect me from the government.  I can't fight professional soldiers armed with machine guns, tanks, fighter jets/bombers, and chemical weapons.



The problem Moon Bat is that you Libtards are bat shit crazy and are never "reasonable".  You wouldn't know the definition of reasonable if it bit you in the ass.

Every time you make a stupid comment like that I will post an example of the oppression of the government to be unreasonable when it comes to gun control but like a typical Moon Bat asshole you ignore it.  Like the filthy SAFE Act in New York being sold as a "reasonable" gun control measure but led to a veteran having his firearms confiscated by  government jackbooted thugs because he went to the doctor for insomnia.  There are many more examples.


----------



## Lakhota

Time to bring both into the 21st century.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Lakhota said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota, under a Trump tyranny, the 2nd amendment is more important than ever.  If he decides to come for you, your best bet is to be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am.
Click to expand...

Ha...You're a lib. When challenged, you'd piss your panties and drop your weapon....or, you'd have it taken from you. It's very easy.


----------



## Iceweasel

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.


It's been well understood for 240 years. Liberals are what's confusing.


----------



## Lakhota

Iceweasel said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's been well understood for 240 years. Liberals are what's confusing.
Click to expand...


No, it has actually been *mis*understood.

*How Conservatives "Reinvented" the Second Amendment*
*
How the NRA perverted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment
*
*The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does*

*So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?*


----------



## Iceweasel

Lakhota said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's been well understood for 240 years. Liberals are what's confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has actually been *mis*understood.
Click to expand...

Post your best point, I don't do your research. The laws and founder's writings favor my views.


----------



## SavannahMann

Lakhota said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It's been well understood for 240 years. Liberals are what's confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it has actually been *mis*understood.
> 
> *How Conservatives "Reinvented" the Second Amendment*
> *
> How the NRA perverted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment
> *
> *The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does*
> 
> *So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?*
Click to expand...


Odd. Since the founders said that keeping arms was the right of the people without any ambiguity. 

Bear Arms

Patrick Toobin must have missed that in his research. 

A couple examples of what the founders intended. 



> "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
> --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
> "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
> --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.



I know. We are so much more certain of what the founders intended than their clear words on the matter indicate. Or my favorite, the founders never imagined this or that. If they had foreseen the modern weapons they never would have passed the Second Amendment. 

Pfui. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Lakhota

So, the popular vote runner-up wins.  How...barbaric...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> So, the popular vote runner-up wins.  How...barbaric...



Are you gonna harm yourself?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> So, the popular vote runner-up wins.  How...barbaric...



Just think of the EC as a participation trophy with teeth...now you have a safe place


----------



## owebo

Lakhota said:


> Time to bring both into the 21st century.


American citizens purchased almost 50,000 tons of ammunition in 2016 to make sure it is you who remain outdated......


----------



## whitehall

It's no secret that the radical left thinks the rest of the Bill of Rights are outdated as well as the 2nd Amendment. Another reason to thank God Trump won the election.


----------



## Contumacious

owebo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to bring both into the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens purchased almost 50,000 tons of ammunition in 2016 to make sure it is you who remain outdated......
Click to expand...




50, 000 tons of ammunition?


Holy shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The Butthurts' plan to steal the election could have turned deadly had they been successful. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




Tissue?


----------



## Pop23

Billy_Kinetta said:


> You know the drill.  Change it.
> 
> I believe it is you people who have outlasted their welcome, not the Constitution.



They want democracy. In a democracy there is no need for a constitution or a Supreme Court. 

Sure, go for it

Abortion = illegal
Same sex marriage = illegal

I'm digging your vibe dude


----------



## buckeye45_73

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Hey Lakhota, don't' you just love the results?
I mean what bullshit are you going to come up with next, so I can prepare my laughtrack.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map




But we have both to stop you socialist bullshit. Too fucking bad for you


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> So, thanks to the founders' lack of foresight - we're going to get fucked tomorrow!


Right, they didn't foresee the states losing their sovereignty.  How shortsighted of them.


----------



## mrbojanglezs

it is not outdated, if anything it is more relevant now as there are large populations in a very small area of the country. The founding fathers did not want mob rule they wanted equal representation


----------



## Rustic

mrbojanglezs said:


> it is not outdated, if anything it is more relevant now as there are large populations in a very small area of the country. The founding fathers did not want mob rule they wanted equal representation


Never mind the Washington Redskin… he gets into the firewater quite often.


----------



## Lakhota

Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.


----------



## Stormy Daniels

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


----------



## Hossfly

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*freedom never goes out of style*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Cry, bitch.  We're not changing either of them. 

.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


/——/ Liberalism is as outdated as the Whig Party


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.



Nah. It's bad enough that fraud in Chicago can impact Illinois' electoral votes, it would be far worse if Chicago fraud could impact the entire nation.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Maybe you should move somewhere more in line with your mental illness?  Popular vote rules all and firearms are outlawed. Lots of places more suitable for the likes of you than here.  Bon voyage.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.




It would be the end of the United States of america..

Where would you ghetto guys get your food from?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. It's bad enough that fraud in Chicago can impact Illinois' electoral votes, it would be far worse if Chicago fraud could impact the entire nation.
Click to expand...



It happened, don't you remember the jiffy lube guy form Chicago?


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.



Your ignorance and stupidity was too much for me to stay quiet.

 Up to 1967, it was legal to sell and ship guns through the mail, no background check existed then. No mass shooting sprees in schools, stores or other public places happened, with the exception of the 1966 tower shooter, who unfortunately was a trained sniper, who had a big tumor in his head.

Up into the 1960's, it was legal to carry rifles in the vehicle, even in plain sight in some areas, No mass shootings happened at all except the occasional mob killings. The murder rate PEAKED way back in the early 1980's, has not been close since the 1990's when concealed carry became legal in many states, it is now around 50% LOWER than the early 80's.






LINK

America leads the world in number of guns per capita (by far), yet NOT in the top 50 murder rate per capita. Despite the massive increase in Concealed Carry permits, the crime rate went DOWN after 1990, when most of the states were allowing Concealed Carry.

Despite DOUBLING the number of fire arms in the last 30 years, coupled with massive increase in legal carrying guns around on the street, concealed the Crime rate went down and stayed down.

You are at odds with the second amendment, with the co sponsors of the second amendment, and with many democrats who in the classic liberal days also revered the second amendment, such as Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and JFK.

If you bothered to pay attention to demographics of the shooters, you would have noticed they ALL had something in common, they were mentally ill and/or on behavioral drugs. Those are the people who have done these mass shootings the last 3-4 decades, thus laws will not stop them, but vigilance, drug rebalilitation and take guns out of mentally ill people can make a big difference.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*



I notice that you are too ignorant to realize that a couple of human beings co sponsored the Second Amendment way back in 1788-89, do you know what they said about it?

Hint: It is in *The* *Federalist,* oh sorry you didn't know such a book existed...….., I have a copy in my book library along with a few other books about Gun rights over the years, and what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.


So how can it be racist when Obama  won the electoral college twice or is this just a Pavlovian response for you now ?


----------



## Lakhota

Sunsettommy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that you are too ignorant to realize that a couple of human beings co sponsored the Second Amendment way back in 1788-89, do you know what they said about it?
> 
> Hint: It is in *The* *Federalist,* oh sorry you didn't know such a book existed...….., I have a copy in my book library along with a few other books about Gun rights over the years, and what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.
Click to expand...


The Federalist?  I thought we were governed by the Constitution - not the opinions or intentions of prior writings.  BTW, what does The Federalist say about the 2nd Amendment and bearing arms?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Lakhota said:


> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*


No its not, your either stupid or purposely misunderstanding the 2nd because of sociopolitical bias


----------



## Lakhota

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.
> 
> 
> 
> So how can it be racist when Obama  won the electoral college twice or is this just a Pavlovian response for you now ?
Click to expand...


Google its origins.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Lakhota said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.
> 
> 
> 
> So how can it be racist when Obama  won the electoral college twice or is this just a Pavlovian response for you now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google its origins.
Click to expand...

What does its origins have to do with today ? Why don't you google the past of the Democratic party first ?


----------



## Lakhota

Thankfully, we have several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who endorse abolishing the Electoral College.


----------



## Aponi

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


If you dont like the constitution then move meat head


----------



## IM2

Aponi said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont like the constitution then move meat head
Click to expand...


He's from here. You whites aren't. Adopt the constitution of his nation.

Or take your white ass back to Europe.


----------



## wamose

Everyone knows there is more illiteracy in cities and blue states. So why should we allow these nincompoops, many non citizens, to elect our President? Our founding fathers were wise beyond their years


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Lol
Washington redskin,
Stay out of the fucking fire water


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont like the constitution then move meat head
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's from here. You whites aren't. Adopt the constitution of his nation.
> 
> Or take your white ass back to Europe.
Click to expand...

Much of that constitution was derived from British origins. The British Rule of Law and The Magna Carta. No other thoughts or documents exist on this issue. And even with that and the Constitution people could still be treated badly. And they were all over the world. If you believe that Progressive Socialists are following the Constitution then you are the fool. The Constitution says nothing about the type of economic system we have. It does promote freedom and it was explicit about what real money is. Whatever your opinion of the Electoral College is, it is designed to give us a time to think what we are doing politically. If it is meant for Progressive Socialists to rule, then it will be at a later date and not immedietly. There are massive economic contortions going on as we have a high tax federal government with many high tax states, high tax local areas, high tax regional areas and high tax cities. Social Security when fixed in the 1980's was supposed to last until the mid 2070's. It may not last another decade. And the bill is coming due soon enough just for that.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who give a shit - the wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
> 
> *Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that you are too ignorant to realize that a couple of human beings co sponsored the Second Amendment way back in 1788-89, do you know what they said about it?
> 
> Hint: It is in *The* *Federalist,* oh sorry you didn't know such a book existed...….., I have a copy in my book library along with a few other books about Gun rights over the years, and what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federalist?  I thought we were governed by the Constitution - not the opinions or intentions of prior writings.  BTW, what does The Federalist say about the 2nd Amendment and bearing arms?
Click to expand...


Wow, oh wow, your ignorance is palpable.

I told you there were two people who sponsored the second amendment in 1789, one of the sponsors wrote about it in The Federalist, explaining what that amendment is about. Too bad you are too lazy to look it up, which would if you are honest and open minded, would learn that you and many others are so very wrong.

The Amendment was written for US, the people, *not* for the government. Maybe this LINK will help you wake up but I doubt it since you are very ignorant of the background and the views of the founding fathers on the Second Amendment.

I noticed you IGNORED post 176.

Snicker...………...


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> Thankfully, we have several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who endorse abolishing the Electoral College.




They also think a boy wearing a dress is a girl, 2+ 3 = 8, wishing it so don't make it come true.


.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Thankfully, we have several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who endorse abolishing the Electoral College.


Of course they do.  They want to abolish the entire constitution and put in their communist version.

I'm glad we stole this land from the useless savages.  The world is a better place because of it.





.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

IM2 said:


> He's from here. You whites aren't. Adopt the constitution of his nation.
> 
> Or take your white ass back to Europe.


 I guess the same applies to your black ass? 


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

IM2 said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont like the constitution then move meat head
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's from here. You whites aren't. Adopt the constitution of his nation.
> 
> Or take your white ass back to Europe.
Click to expand...



What nation is that, history illiterate?


----------



## DOTR

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> After we have nationwide voter ID, boot 20 million illegal aliens, secure the border, stop all other forms of Dem vote fraud, end income tax withholding and hold all elections the day after taxes are due in one lump sum....
> then we can discuss using the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.  Only a Constitutional amendment can change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Even if we achieve all that, the Electoral College will remain the way the President is elected.*
> 
> I know, but after my ideas are implemented, Dems will never win the White House again and they'd be lucky to get 25% of the House and Senate.
Click to expand...



Can anyone name a country which elects its executive or head of stare by popular vote? I think one or two do. But it’s rare. Maybe that paradise Mexico?


----------



## gallantwarrior

Sunsettommy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and stupidity was too much for me to stay quiet.
> 
> Up to 1967, it was legal to sell and ship guns through the mail, no background check existed then. No mass shooting sprees in schools, stores or other public places happened, with the exception of the 1966 tower shooter, who unfortunately was a trained sniper, who had a big tumor in his head.
> 
> Up into the 1960's, it was legal to carry rifles in the vehicle, even in plain sight in some areas, No mass shootings happened at all except the occasional mob killings. The murder rate PEAKED way back in the early 1980's, has not been close since the 1990's when concealed carry became legal in many states, it is now around 50% LOWER than the early 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> America leads the world in number of guns per capita (by far), yet NOT in the top 50 murder rate per capita. Despite the massive increase in Concealed Carry permits, the crime rate went DOWN after 1990, when most of the states were allowing Concealed Carry.
> 
> Despite DOUBLING the number of fire arms in the last 30 years, coupled with massive increase in legal carrying guns around on the street, concealed the Crime rate went down and stayed down.
> 
> You are at odds with the second amendment, with the co sponsors of the second amendment, and with many democrats who in the classic liberal days also revered the second amendment, such as Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and JFK.
> 
> If you bothered to pay attention to demographics of the shooters, you would have noticed they ALL had something in common, they were mentally ill and/or on behavioral drugs. Those are the people who have done these mass shootings the last 3-4 decades, thus laws will not stop them, but vigilance, drug rebalilitation and take guns out of mentally ill people can make a big difference.
Click to expand...

Those were the people who, until about the same time you cite, would have been committed and confined to asylums.  Now, we allow the insane to run rampant among us.  Ah, but it is a kinder, gentler society...except for the victims of the insane.


----------



## gallantwarrior

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.
> 
> 
> 
> So how can it be racist when Obama  won the electoral college twice or is this just a Pavlovian response for you now ?
Click to expand...

The vote didn't go her way, so now it is tantamount that the EC be eliminated to prevent their "side" from losing ever again.


----------



## easyt65

_The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment_

This coming from the Socialists who say the 1st Amendment is out-dated, too, and needs to go away / be changed.


----------



## Lakhota

End the EC.


----------



## Issa

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


A referendum would definitely abolish the EC....till then there will be times where the crazy minority governs and sink the US.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> A referendum would definitely abolish the EC....till then there will be times where the crazy minority governs and sink the US.
Click to expand...


All that needs to be done is change the Constitution which is 2/3 votes in each houses of government and then 3/4 of the states would then need to ratify the amendment.


----------



## ptbw forever

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Democracy is one of the most outdated political systems in human history.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> End the EC.


I see the constitution is still a thorn in your side rosie...not to mention mueller clearing trump


----------



## Lakhota

Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!







Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
Click to expand...


Stupid people will rule either way - so let the popular vote decide the outcome.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid people will rule either way - so let the popular vote decide the outcome.
Click to expand...






Nope, far better to put off stupid people rule for as long as possible.  Leads to less mass murder which is the final result o stupid people rule.


----------



## bluzman61

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!


I should have known that you were responsible for starting this incredibly stupid thread, Chief.  You are SO brainwashed by our biased media, you never post ANYTHING of intellect.  Go back to the reservation, Chief, and get rid of the brainwashing before posting again, PLEASE.


----------



## DOTR

bluzman61 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> I should have known that you were responsible for starting this incredibly stupid thread, Chief.  You are SO brainwashed by our biased media, you never post ANYTHING of intellect.  Go back to the reservation, Chief, and get rid of the brainwashing before posting again, PLEASE.
Click to expand...

These people share no cultural or national values with Americans.


----------



## SavannahMann

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!


----------



## Lakhota

Each state gets to elect their own local, state, and federal representatives.  BUT, the popular vote should elect the president of all the states.


----------



## bluzman61

Lakhota said:


> Each state gets to elect their own local, state, and federal representatives.  BUT, the popular vote should elect the president of all the states.


Man, you are SO dumb, Chief.  Please put down the peace pipe before responding again!


----------



## DOTR

Lakhota said:


> Each state gets to elect their own local, state, and federal representatives.  BUT, the popular vote should elect the president of all the states.



“Should”? who says?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!



Nah, that would reward Dem cheating even more.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Lakhota said:


> Each state gets to elect their own local, state, and federal representatives.  BUT, the popular vote should elect the president of all the states.



None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.


----------



## Lakhota

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each state gets to elect their own local, state, and federal representatives.  BUT, the popular vote should elect the president of all the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.
Click to expand...


I've always thought the EC was a dinosaur.  It needs put out of its misery.  Two of our worst presidents failed to win the popular vote - Bush Jr. and Trump.  A total of FIVE presidents in U.S. history failed to win the popular vote.

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia


----------



## DOTR

Her masters voice. They follow what they are told....
  Ignorance and evil. It’s what we are fighting and there is no part of the constitution they don’t hate.


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!




Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.  
One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.


----------



## Lakhota

Yarddog said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
Click to expand...


That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
Click to expand...


Nah.


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
Click to expand...



No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC


----------



## Lakhota

Yarddog said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
Click to expand...


Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
Click to expand...




Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.  
And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.


----------



## IM2

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
Click to expand...

Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.


----------



## IM2

bluzman61 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> I should have known that you were responsible for starting this incredibly stupid thread, Chief.  You are SO brainwashed by our biased media, you never post ANYTHING of intellect.  Go back to the reservation, Chief, and get rid of the brainwashing before posting again, PLEASE.
Click to expand...

You are the brainwashed one. You have been radicalized by the right wing media. Deprogram.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



Fuck you.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> I should have known that you were responsible for starting this incredibly stupid thread, Chief.  You are SO brainwashed by our biased media, you never post ANYTHING of intellect.  Go back to the reservation, Chief, and get rid of the brainwashing before posting again, PLEASE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the brainwashed one. You have been radicalized by the right wing media. Deprogram.
Click to expand...


This is so ironic.


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
Click to expand...

BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much? 

Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.


----------



## IM2

Sun Devil 92 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> I should have known that you were responsible for starting this incredibly stupid thread, Chief.  You are SO brainwashed by our biased media, you never post ANYTHING of intellect.  Go back to the reservation, Chief, and get rid of the brainwashing before posting again, PLEASE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the brainwashed one. You have been radicalized by the right wing media. Deprogram.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is so ironic.
Click to expand...

There is nothing ironic about it.


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
Click to expand...




Stacking the supreme court?  No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.

Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
Click to expand...


If Hillary would have won, we'd have a huge dumberass as president.

And the point would be bullshit.


----------



## IM2

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stacking the supreme court?  No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.
> 
> Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
> At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
> Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained
> 
> 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
> 
> As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.
Click to expand...


Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country. 

What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.


----------



## IM2

Sun Devil 92 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Hillary would have won, we'd have a huge dumberass as president.
> 
> And the point would be bullshit.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Hillary was far more qualified and understood world affairs better than the idiot in office now.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Hillary would have won, we'd have a huge dumberass as president.
> 
> And the point would be bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Hillary was far more qualified and understood world affairs better than the idiot in office now.
Click to expand...


Spout this bullshit all year long.

It does not make it any less bullshit.


----------



## IM2

Sun Devil 92 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Hillary would have won, we'd have a huge dumberass as president.
> 
> And the point would be bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Hillary was far more qualified and understood world affairs better than the idiot in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spout this bullshit all year long.
> 
> It does not make it any less bullshit.
Click to expand...


Too bad it's true.


----------



## Third Party

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


It keeps the executive branch and the legislative branch from complete takeovers, just like the 6 year senate term-or do you want to end that too?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Hillary would have won, we'd have a huge dumberass as president.
> 
> And the point would be bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Hillary was far more qualified and understood world affairs better than the idiot in office now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spout this bullshit all year long.
> 
> It does not make it any less bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad it's true.
Click to expand...


I agree it is true that it is total bullshit.


----------



## Picaro

The middle class lost any ability to rule itself in the 1960's anyway, and 'Da Constitution' was rendered irrelevant in 1861 and is changed by whoever can appoint Judges to Federal benches and the SC. Quit kidding yourselves, you don't live under a real set of laws, just fashionable whims; this country can't even keep truly sick scumbags away from its school children any more, might offend some mental case and make them feel all oppressed or something.


----------



## Picaro

12icer said:


> Btw the statement you made about the states is wrong, Each state decides how to disburse their electors, they are not all one take all. The dimshit scum have tried to make all of the states that usually vote for them WTA states simply because they ALWAYS LOSE if each elector is made to vote as each district votes. just as the counties in the country voted 90% for Trump and 10% for shitbitch. If you are really NAtive AMerican do your people elect the head of the Tribal council by popular vote? or do the members of the council decide their leader?



lol 'Native American' Tribal Councils are a joke, more corrupt than any Mafia family.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid people will rule either way - so let the popular vote decide the outcome.
Click to expand...

/——/ Why?


----------



## tycho1572

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Here's a nice song I think you'll like....


----------



## fncceo

IM2 said:


> Hillary was far more qualified and understood world affairs better than the idiot in office now.



I hear she's really nice to work for ...


----------



## Pilot1

Rambunctious said:


> American Indians long ago killed each other as ruthlessly as Muslims do currently....



We've amended the Constitution many times in the past.  If they want to get rid of the EC there is already a process to do that spelled out in the Constitution.  However, STATES elect Presidents, not People.  We are not a big collective like the USSR, we are a collection of STATES.  People vote to tell their State EC on how to vote.  More population means more EC votes.  It is a purposely designed process as we are a Republic of STATES, not one big, homogenous territory.

The Indian needs to get educated or continue to be IGNORANT.


----------



## cnm

Pilot1 said:


> More population means more EC votes.


But not representative of the population. That's why prairie has more influence.


----------



## NoVote

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!



Spoken like a butt hurt mctardo.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Stalinist democrats need their own country, one that does not share a border with the USA. You can have no Constitution, no individual right, only the beloved government is armed, they can spy on you, control what you do, no carbon footprint, everyone earns the same no matter what they do. Stop being such fucking whining pussies and just leave already


----------



## fncceo

Time to revise the Electoral college -- each state gets ONE vote.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Pilot1 said:


> ...It is a purposely designed process as we are a Republic of STATES, not one big, homogenous territory.



But you have only one big, homogenous, orange pretzeldent to rule them all

Seems like the system was purposely designed to make sure the peasants wouldn't get any funny ideas about implementing an actual democracy...

Sad!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jantje_Smit said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It is a purposely designed process as we are a Republic of STATES, not one big, homogenous territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have only one big, homogenous, orange pretzeldent to rule them all
> 
> Seems like the system was purposely designed to make sure the peasants wouldn't get any funny ideas about implementing an actual democracy...
> 
> Sad!
Click to expand...

We're a Republic


----------



## Jantje_Smit

CrusaderFrank said:


> We're a Republic



Nah, the states are the republic, the "we" don't have a say in the matter.... 

And all states are equal... but some are more equal than others..

Sad!


----------



## fncceo

Jantje_Smit said:


> but some are more equal than others..



That's true ... California gets 55... that number be cut by half, at least.


----------



## cnm

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.


I've always thought it a device to prevent too much democracy.


----------



## cnm

Here we go, 2015


cnm said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not. It provides unequal representation for voters.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


My right to self-defense predates the U.S Constitution 
You have no rights if you can't defend those rights against someone well-armed


----------



## cnm

Here we go, 2015


cnm said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....
> 
> 
> 
> Or any vote, does it? I mean that's its major point.
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cnm said:


> Here we go, 2015
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not. It provides unequal representation for voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The electoral college is proof we are not a democracy
The only votes that would count are those in Californa New York Texas and Florida.
Tell you what let's compromise
Do away with the electoral college 
BUT
you will have VOTER ID and only those who would be allowed to vote would be property owners


----------



## cnm

CrusaderFrank said:


> We're a Republic


I can see you have as much to do with dictionaries as you do with scientific papers...

_democracy noun (*democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. *2* a country, state or other body with such a form of government._​


----------



## cnm

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The electoral college is proof we are not a democracy


Another to whom dictionaries are anathema.


----------



## cnm

_Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached._​


----------



## cnm

cnm said:


> too easily duped by promises


Well they foresaw the Orange One but their scheme was to no avail...


----------



## LeftofLeft

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



You will never sell this to states outside of CA, NY, and IL. But, you can try. Further, while your party masters rattle their Sabre to get rid of the EC, they don’t have the gumption to go through with it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're a Republic
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have as much to do with dictionaries as you do with scientific papers...
> 
> _democracy noun (*democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. *2* a country, state or other body with such a form of government._​
Click to expand...


...and we're still a Republic


----------



## hadit

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
> One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in* more places* throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a poor justification for EC.  People matter - not acreage.  States get to elect their federal representative.  The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
Click to expand...


You do know, don’t you, that it would require a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC? There’s no way anyone could have abolished it in 2 years just because they had a majority in Congress.


----------



## cnm

CrusaderFrank said:


> and we're still a Republic


And a democracy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we're still a Republic
> 
> 
> 
> And a democracy.
Click to expand...


Democratic Republic, but democratic is the modifier for Republic


----------



## cnm

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democratic Republic, but democratic is the modifier for Republic


By definition the US is a democracy. But I know you're a stranger to reference books and their contents.


----------



## Correll

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map





Why limit it to just those two parts? Admit that you don't care about any of it. All dead white men shit anyways, right?


----------



## iceberg

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Thoust anus hurts badly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Republic, but democratic is the modifier for Republic
> 
> 
> 
> By definition the US is a democracy. But I know you're a stranger to reference books and their contents.
Click to expand...


No, Honey Boo Boo, it's a Republic.  Get a refund on your public school edjamankashun


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Republic, but democratic is the modifier for Republic
> 
> 
> 
> By definition the US is a democracy. But I know you're a stranger to reference books and their contents.
Click to expand...


Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."


----------



## Pellinore

We're both a democracy and a republic.  "Democracy" is a wide term meaning any government in which the power to make change rests in the hands of all of the people (which ours does), as opposed to an autocracy (one person), an oligarchy (a council or other small group), or a theocracy (religious leadership).  What we are not is a pure (or direct, or Athenian) democracy, in which every government decision is voted upon by all of the people, which is obviously way too involved and unwieldy for a country our size.  

A republic (which literally means a "public thing") is the opposite of a monarchy.  In a republic, the positions of power in the seat of government are earned rather than fixed; in a democratic republic such as ours, those positions are therefore earned through democratic processes.  Therefore, in an American context, 'republic' refers to the fact that we elect our representatives and send them to DC. 

Bonus term: We're also a federal republic, meaning that we're a collection of smaller, otherwise-independent states collected under one federal government which therefore holds power over those states.  The opposite of that would be a confederacy, in which the states are unified but still retain most of their independent power.  

The United States, as designed, is therefore both a representative democracy and a federal republic.


----------



## CWayne

Lakhota said:


> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Article V, U.S. Constitution


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cnm said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The electoral college is proof we are not a democracy
> 
> 
> 
> Another to whom dictionaries are anathema.
Click to expand...

Speak for your own misinformation
America is a Republic.


----------



## dblack

cnelsen said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> And like the Second Amendment, if you try to sabotage it, it means war.
Click to expand...


If they want to get rid of the electoral college, they'll probably need to eliminate the Second Amendment first.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're a Republic
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have as much to do with dictionaries as you do with scientific papers...
> 
> _democracy noun (*democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. *2* a country, state or other body with such a form of government._​
Click to expand...

This trumps your dictionary 
Art. 4 
*Section 4*.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a* republican form of governmen*t, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


----------



## Wyatt earp

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we're still a Republic
> 
> 
> 
> And a democracy.
Click to expand...

Well good thing gay marriage is still illegal then fruit loops


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bigrebnc1775 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're a Republic
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you have as much to do with dictionaries as you do with scientific papers...
> 
> _democracy noun (*democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. *2* a country, state or other body with such a form of government._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trumps your dictionary
> Art. 4
> *Section 4*.
> The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a* republican form of governmen*t, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Click to expand...

He got trumped


----------



## bigrebnc1775

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Republic, but democratic is the modifier for Republic
> 
> 
> 
> By definition the US is a democracy. But I know you're a stranger to reference books and their contents.
Click to expand...

By the Constitution, we are not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

...and to the Republic for which it stands


----------



## joaquinmiller

Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.


----------



## Wyatt earp

joaquinmiller said:


> Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.



And we are not a democracy


----------



## joaquinmiller

bear513 said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are not a democracy
Click to expand...


Then don't vote.


----------



## Wyatt earp

joaquinmiller said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are not a democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't vote.
Click to expand...



And that means what?


----------



## joaquinmiller

bear513 said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are not a democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what?
Click to expand...


It means if you don't want to participate in our representative democracy, don't vote.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The EC isn’t so much ‘outdated’ as it’s not being used as intended by the Framers.

It was the Framers’ original intent that the Electors vote in accordance with their conscience, not how their state voted.


----------



## Wyatt earp

joaquinmiller said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republic means ultimate power (theoretically) rests with the people, and democracy refers to how the leaders are chosen.  There's no conflict between the expressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are not a democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means if you don't want to participate in our representative democracy, don't vote.
Click to expand...



It means you cant comprehend we are not a democracy  if we were gays wouldn't be allowed to get married


----------



## Crepitus

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Just get the states to apportion the electors by percentages.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IM2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you want stupid people to rule the country.  The Founders figured out that stupid people are stupid and need to be controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems we got a dumb ass as president now. His existence in office validates Lakhotas statement.
Click to expand...


We survived 8 years of your dumb ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stacking the supreme court?  No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.
> 
> Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
> At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
> Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained
> 
> 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
> 
> As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country.
> 
> What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.
Click to expand...


*Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges.*

Suck it whiner!


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map


Washington redskin, 
Without the electoral college small population states have no say in presidential elections… Fact


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Crepitus said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Just get the states to apportion the electors by percentages.
Click to expand...


*Just get the states to apportion the electors by percentages.*

That is a great idea.
Let's try it out on California, New York and Illinois first.
In 20 years or so, we can think about expanding your plan.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

cnm said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought it a device to prevent too much democracy.
Click to expand...


That might be because we aren't a democracy; we're a republic


----------



## Natural Citizen

So much fail in this thread. Gosh.

See attachments. Particularly 38. 'An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic."

Also attached are 40. The Federated System of Republics in America / Principle 5, Limited Government / 15. Principle 6, Decentralized Government / 25. Principle 11, Taxes: Limited to Safeguard Liberty.

These will (should anyway) prepare anyone who takes the time to read them for any further/subsequent discussion on the topic elsewhere, should the topic arise.

These are my personal files. They're clean.

The correct term, btw,  is 'Compound Republic'...See Federalist #51...for starters....


----------



## hjmick

First: Who the fuck resurrected this old POS thread?

Second: Why?

Third: The thread is just as irrelevant now as it was three years ago because neither the Electoral College nor the Second Amendment are outdated.


----------



## petro

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map
> 
> 
> 
> Just get the states to apportion the electors by percentages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just get the states to apportion the electors by percentages.*
> 
> That is a great idea.
> Let's try it out on California, New York and Illinois first.
> In 20 years or so, we can think about expanding your plan.
Click to expand...

If it happened in MN, Trump would have gotten half the state adding 5 more electoral votes. Instead all went to Hillary who only won state by 70K voters.
Creep should be careful what he asks for.


----------



## petro

hjmick said:


> First: Who the fuck resurrected this old POS thread?
> 
> Second: Why?
> 
> Third: The thread is just as irrelevant now as it was three years ago because neither the Electoral College nor the Second Amendment are outdated.


More than likely self bumped by the troll Lackota.


----------



## dblack

hjmick said:


> First: Who the fuck resurrected this old POS thread?
> 
> Second: Why?
> 
> Third: The thread is just as irrelevant now as it was three years ago because neither the Electoral College nor the Second Amendment are outdated.


It doesn't seems like the concerns that prompted the design of the electoral college have changed. How is it outdated?


----------



## Rustic

A pure popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule


----------



## Rustic

petro said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: Who the fuck resurrected this old POS thread?
> 
> Second: Why?
> 
> Third: The thread is just as irrelevant now as it was three years ago because neither the Electoral College nor the Second Amendment are outdated.
> 
> 
> 
> More than likely self bumped by the troll Lackota.
Click to expand...

AKA: Washington redskin....


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

cnm said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought it a device to prevent too much democracy.
Click to expand...


It is exactly that.  A device to prevent logistically ignorant voters in massive cities from having carte blanche to impose poorly thought out restrictions on the regions that grow their food.  And thank God or the Universe or my lucky f'in stars for that.  California doesn't need to be replicated at the national level.


----------



## Rustic

Not2BSubjugated said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you complained about the Electoral College until you couldn't win it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought it a device to prevent too much democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is exactly that.  A device to prevent logistically ignorant voters in massive cities from having carte blanche to impose poorly thought out restrictions on the regions that grow their food.
Click to expand...

Yep,
A pure popular vote popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Indeed, the notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended
> 
> Indeed, t*he notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.*



Definitely. If anything is "broken" about the EC, it's that. We need to reinforce the EC, not get rid of it.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended
> 
> Indeed, the notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.



You're not exactly presenting a strawman here, but this isn't as all-or-nothing as you seem to be making it out to be.  Yes, the electors have the absolute freedom to vote as they wish.  That said, the party submitting the candidate in question chooses their electors, the assumption being that they'd be smart enough not to choose electors that weren't on board with the candidate for whom they would ostensibly be voting.  It wasn't exactly the founders way of saying the electors should take it upon themselves to choose the president, more like a failsafe in the event that a state decided to vote for something so heinous that an appropriate number of electors couldn't be found who would support their own party in said decision.

Technically, though, yeah, obviously you're correct.  Thus the self important celebrities in ads begging the electors to tank Trump after the 2016 general.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rustic said:


> A pure popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule



Dem voter fraud in Illinois and California only impacts already safe Dem EC votes.
If we switched to a national vote, Chicago fraud could potentially flip the entire nation.

No thanks.


----------



## skookerasbil

This thread needs to be nominated for the *DUMBEST THREAD OF THE YEAR* award. Its like debating whether a slug is in a trance or not in a trance.

Conversation only on message boards in the nether regions of the internet...…but nowhere else.

Once again, bubblehead progressives thinking the country thinks like LA, New York and DC!


----------



## 2aguy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pure popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dem voter fraud in Illinois and California only impacts already safe Dem EC votes.
> If we switched to a national vote, Chicago fraud could potentially flip the entire nation.
> 
> No thanks.
Click to expand...



see....that't the feature, not the flaw in their plan...


----------



## Yarddog

IM2 said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stacking the supreme court?  No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.
> 
> Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
> At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
> Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained
> 
> 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
> 
> As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country.
> 
> What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.
Click to expand...



Trump is appointing Justices just as he is supposed to do as president. When The Supreme Court was majority Liberal, you didnt see the Republicans trying to increase the number of seats to balance things out. The Democrats on the other hand started crying immediately and also want to impeach certain judges. Yes, they are the party of changing the rules or changing outcomes into their favor.

Clinton? was it about a blow job? Now you are being dishonest. The impeachment was over violating the civil rights of a certain woman who took him to civil court by lying under testimony. Yes, the lie was about Lewinsky... in itself not a big deal but it was an attempt to escape justice for what he did to a private citizen.

And yes, its just peoples opinions. The transcript said nothing about money, or bribes, or quid pro quo, yet its people like Schiff who make up shit as they go along to help form other peoples opinions.


----------



## 2aguy

Yarddog said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot.  Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules?  I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
> Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
> And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost.  Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?
> 
> Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stacking the supreme court?  No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.
> 
> Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
> At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
> Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained
> 
> 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
> 
> As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country.
> 
> What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is appointing Justices just as he is supposed to do as president. When The Supreme Court was majority Liberal, you didnt see the Republicans trying to increase the number of seats to balance things out. The Democrats on the other hand started crying immediately and also want to impeach certain judges. Yes, they are the party of changing the rules or changing outcomes into their favor.
> 
> Clinton? was it about a blow job? Now you are being dishonest. The impeachment was over violating the civil rights of a certain woman who took him to civil court by lying under testimony. Yes, the lie was about Lewinsky... in itself not a big deal but it was an attempt to escape justice for what he did to a private citizen.
> 
> And yes, its just peoples opinions. The transcript said nothing about money, or bribes, or quid pro quo, yet its people like Schiff who make up shit as they go along to help form other peoples opinions.
Click to expand...



They are simply the party of "Power at any cost."   They are tired of waiting 4 years and 2 years, and have decided to end those delays...... the judicial branch gives them power to make laws without votes, so they will no longer leave that open to debate....


----------



## Lakhota

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



Long past time for this old dinosaur to die!  Should be based on people - not acres!


----------



## fncceo

Lakhota said:


> Should be based on people - not acres!



In fact, electoral vote representation is based on population in each state.


----------



## justinacolmena

Lakhota said:


> Popular vote - not acres!


The Electoral College provides for some control by state and district to prevent the election from being stolen by the mob that counts the most ballots for the pro-organized crime candidate in the worst mob towns like Chicago and New York City.


----------



## Lakhota

ThisIsMe said:


> What's wrong with that?



Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres!  People!


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres!  People!









Nope.  Then you get the tyranny of the mob.  No thanks.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Long past time for this old dinosaur to die!  Should be based on people - not acres!


/—-/ We would be ruled by Southern California and downstate New York.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Nope.  Then you get the tyranny of the mob.  No thanks.



The "tyranny of the mob" is Republicans passing laws to rig the Electoral College to overturn the will of the people.  Fact.


----------



## justinacolmena

westwall said:


> Nope.  Then you get the tyranny of the mob.  No thanks.


The Mob that stuffs the ballot boxes the fullest in the biggest cities and counts itself the most votes for the capos and made men.


----------



## fncceo

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres! People!



Did you just get a new T-Shirt?  Did the Che one wear out?


----------



## justinacolmena

fncceo said:


> Did you just get a new T-Shirt?  Did the Che one wear out?


South American Latino? Or Native American without the pride?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> The "tyranny of the mob" is Republicans passing laws to rig the Electoral College to overturn the will of the people.  Fact.


/——/ So why isn’t Trump in the White House? Bwhahahaha


----------



## Lakhota

justinacolmena said:


> The Mob that stuffs the ballot boxes the fullest in the biggest cities and counts itself the most votes for the capos and made men.



What is particularly hilarious is that you NaziCon morons can't provide any proof of such claims - which have been dismissed by all the courts including SCOTUS.


----------



## Lakhota

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ So why isn’t Trump in the White House? Bwhahahaha



Because they hadn't yet perfected their coup in time to save Trump - but they are working overtime to perfect it for 2022 and 2024.


----------



## surada

Lakhota said:


> Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!
> 
> Popular vote - not acres!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.
> 
> U.S. Electoral Vote Map



Rural areas and small towns wouldn't have much say in who was elected. Oddly enough in 2012 Trump ranted and raved against the Electoral College.


----------



## Lastamender

Lakhota said:


> Because they hadn't yet perfected their coup in time to save Trump - but they are working overtime to perfect it for 2022 and 2024.


Starting a conspiracy theory?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Because they hadn't yet perfected their coup in time to save Trump - but they are working overtime to perfect it for 2022 and 2024.


/——-/ Curses, foiled again.


----------



## Lastamender

surada said:


> Rural areas and small towns wouldn't have much say in who was elected. Oddly enough in 2012 Trump ranted and raved against the Electoral College.


Obama was against gay marriage but he evolved. Trump should have that option.


----------



## XponentialChaos

If/when demographic changes flip Texas to blue, then we’ll see Republicans come to the table in changing the electoral college.


----------



## Lastamender

XponentialChaos said:


> If/when demographic changes flip Texas to blue, then we’ll see Republicans come to the table in changing the electoral college.


Hispanics are the new conservatives. Democrats are losing their vote.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Lastamender said:


> Hispanics are the new conservatives.


Except they vote blue.


----------



## westwall

XponentialChaos said:


> Except they vote blue.






Not in Florida they didn't.


----------



## XponentialChaos

westwall said:


> Not in Florida they didn't.


Correct. Democrats need to stop trying to flip Florida.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ We would be ruled by Southern California and downstate New York.


That's exactly what the left wants.


----------



## Lakhota

Electing a president is about people - not acreage.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Electing a president is about people - not acreage.





Correct.  That's why the EC makes sure that ALL the people have a vote that matters.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> Long past time for this old dinosaur to die!  Should be based on people - not acres!


So amend the Constitution. That's how you change it.


----------

