# New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)



## easyt65

DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'

"Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.



"_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."

The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_


This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.

Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:


----------



## tinydancer

Good grief!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

They truely live in the land of fairy tales & pixie dust.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

didnt Perez claim that Trump didn't really win the election?,,,yah? then who did? Huma Abbadabbadeem?


----------



## OKTexas

easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688




The political parties don't have presidents, they have Chairmen. That said the commiecrats really scraped the bottom of the leftist barrel to get this guy.


.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

This is a monster gaffe and if a repub said this, it would be headlines.  Instead, it's been blacked out by the networks.



> DNC Chairman Tom Perez: 'The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> oct 26  2017  Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during a lecture Tuesday the Electoral College isn't "a creation of the Constitution."
> 
> Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School's Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.
> 
> "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."
> 
> Perez went on to note the first state to pass such a measure was Maryland.
> 
> Contrary to Perez's claim, the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College in Article II, and the 12th Amendment details the process by which electors will meet and vote for president and vice president.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

ShootSpeeders said:


> This is a monster gaffe and if a repub said this, it would be headlines.  Instead, it's been blacked out by the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during a lecture Tuesday the Electoral College isn't "a creation of the Constitution."
> 
> Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School's Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.
> 
> "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."
> 
> Perez went on to note the first state to pass such a measure was Maryland.
> 
> Contrary to Perez's claim, the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College in Article II, and the 12th Amendment details the process by which electors will meet and vote for president and vice president.
Click to expand...


Perez is one of those idiots that hate the system until they learn it is better than the national vote.

The idiot is upset that California could not sway the vote but let a Republican win the National Popular vote and lose the Electoral College and watch Perez praise the Electoral College...

Also the Democratic Party need to run a candidate that can win the Electoral College which mean they need someone to win swing states...


----------



## Stratford57




----------



## Rexx Taylor

the new DNC Chairman is also from Uranus


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Pogo

ShootSpeeders said:


> This is a monster gaffe and if a repub said this, it would be headlines.  Instead, it's been blacked out by the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during a lecture Tuesday the Electoral College isn't "a creation of the Constitution."
> 
> Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School's Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.
> 
> "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."
> 
> Perez went on to note the first state to pass such a measure was Maryland.
> 
> Contrary to Perez's claim, the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College in Article II, and the 12th Amendment details the process by which electors will meet and vote for president and vice president.
Click to expand...


Link to the speech?

Actually -- link to anything?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a monster gaffe and if a repub said this, it would be headlines.  Instead, it's been blacked out by the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during a lecture Tuesday the Electoral College isn't "a creation of the Constitution."
> 
> Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School's Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.
> 
> "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."
> 
> Perez went on to note the first state to pass such a measure was Maryland.
> 
> Contrary to Perez's claim, the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College in Article II, and the 12th Amendment details the process by which electors will meet and vote for president and vice president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perez is one of those idiots that hate the system until they learn it is better than the national vote.
> 
> The idiot is upset that California could not sway the vote but let a Republican win the National Popular vote and lose the Electoral College and watch Perez praise the Electoral College...
> 
> Also the Democratic Party need to run a candidate that can win the Electoral College which mean they need someone to win swing states...
Click to expand...


This has been an  ongoing strategy  with the Democrats  for some time now. 

Their goal is to convince  their  voters that they are  not the minority; that the country is turning liberal and  socialist;  the  Republicans are nothing  more than rich old white men soon to die off. 

So when things don't come out as they predict, they need to make up excuses.  They need to convince  their voters that they really won, it's just that the Republicans cheated somehow.  If their voters ever learned the truth, they would be less enthused about voting and that would hurt the Democrat party. 

Trump: Russian collusion and interfering with our election system.
Bush: Diebold machines that were  rigged for GW. 
Bush: The Supreme Court "selected" Bush for the presidency. 

On  top of that,  there is the gerrymandering excuse, the Voter-ID  law  excuse, and yes, the electoral college excuse.  They even went as far as to blame  punch-card ballots that cost communities millions of dollars to convert from  that to modern machinery. 

It's all  BS, but it serves a purpose, to convince Democrat voters that they are always cheated with every Republican  win.


----------



## rightwinger

As constituted today......It's not


----------



## Pogo

ScienceRocks said:


> Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?



"Replace" based on what?  The OP didn't even link the evidence. I couldn't find it either.

Yer gonna take ShitSpitters' word for it?


----------



## ScienceRocks

The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States *Constitution* provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the *Electoral College* originally functioned.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Pogo said:


> Link to the speech?
> 
> Actually -- link to anything?




I just added it to the header post.


----------



## Pogo

ShootSpeeders said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the speech?
> 
> Actually -- link to anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just added it to the header post.
Click to expand...


Thank you.
Actually I already saw that link, and several others, and all any of them offer is a voice recorder recording that sounds like it came from a closet down the hall, and from what can be heard it sounds like it BEGINS with the quote in your title.

---- And that means we have no clue what the context was going in.  And it also means it was deliberately edited TO start at that point, meaning whoever edited it that way *wanted* us not to know the context that sets it up.

Why do you suppose they didn't want us to hear that?

Now when you can find us an intelligible recording of the whole thing, or a transcript ---- you'll have a claim.  Either that, or the whole thing crumbles to dust.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Stratford57 said:


> View attachment 156717



Massive difference. How a party chooses its own candidate has nothing to do with the electoral college.

Personally I'd like to see more viable parties so no one cares how someone is elected to be presidential candidate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> As constituted today......It's not



Riiiight


----------



## flacaltenn

easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688



Can't wait for that showdown. Should we tell them the process of AMENDING the Constitution or the seats in Senate are not by population or national popular vote total also?   Naww..  Let 'em get riled.


----------



## Weatherman2020

This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"

Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'


----------



## Crixus

I l


----------



## DGS49

Perez is an idiot.

As for the myth that HRC would have won a popular-vote election, one might note the following:

Had the rules been changed prior to the start of the first primaries, the entire election cycle would have played out totally differently.  The entire focus during both the primaries and the general election would have been the most populous states.  Iowa?  WGAS? There is no telling who would have won the nominations on either side, but the probability is that Sanders would have won for the Democrats.  In the Republican field with so many good candidates running, it is likely that money would have been a bigger factor.  It is unknowable.

With the rules as they were, millions of Republicans in Blue states simply declined to vote, especially in California, where the Senate race pitted one Democrat versus another Democrat.

Next time, if a popular vote format would be adopted (not practically possible), Trump would beat anyone currently in the Democrat "firmament."  Joe Biden would likely be the Dem nominee, but his history is so full of public idiocy, he would have to win on policy, and with his party so far to the Left, he would lose in a landslide.

Perez is an idiot.


----------



## blastoff

Gee, the dimocrat party elects a mental midget as their chairman.  

This is dog bites man stuff.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Weatherman2020 said:


> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'


/----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.


----------



## depotoo

With his credentials, and yet doesn’t know that?.  Somethings wrong with this picture.   Someone might want to check his credentials are legit.   Lol


----------



## L.K.Eder

Cellblock2429 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
Click to expand...



"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012


----------



## Stratford57

Cellblock2429 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
Click to expand...


----------



## ColonelAngus

He is a profane dufus, and Dems pretend to be shocked by Trumps tweets.


----------



## DrLove

The EC has little to do with small cities vs large. It came about as a result of slavery and blacks counting as "3/5 of a man" and protecting slave states.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

L.K.Eder said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
Click to expand...


True, but we are not a democracy.


----------



## depotoo

He didn’t deny it is within the constitution...





L.K.Eder said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
Click to expand...


----------



## NightFox

depotoo said:


> With his credentials, and yet doesn’t know that?.  Somethings wrong with this picture.   Someone might want to check his credentials are legit.   Lol



You're assuming he doesn't know that .....

Personally I suspect that he is well aware of the fact that the electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution and choose to intentionally mislead his audience in order to garner support for his "cause" and provide a talking point to help the useful idiots spread his "message".

How likely do you think it is that there are law students that attended his lecture out there right now arguing for the elimination of the EC and using the "it's not part of the Constitution" talking point because that's what the DNC Chair told 'em.


----------



## depotoo

I started to include or he is intentionally deceiving those that can be but, chose not to.  Lol





NightFox said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> With his credentials, and yet doesn’t know that?.  Somethings wrong with this picture.   Someone might want to check his credentials are legit.   Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming he doesn't know that .....
> 
> Personally I suspect that he is well aware of the fact that the electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution and choose to intentionally mislead his audience in order to garner support for his "cause" and provide a talking point to help the useful idiots spread his "message".
> 
> How likely do you think it is that there are law students that attended his lecture out there right now arguing for the elimination of the EC and using the "it's not part of the Constitution" talking point because that's what the DNC Chair told 'em.
Click to expand...


----------



## blackhawk

Perez statement.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Billy_Kinetta said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but we are not a democracy.
Click to expand...

tell trump that then, hero.


----------



## easyt65

Perez - again, the new DNC chairman - also claims he knew nothing about the DNC spending $9 MILLION on the dossier.  At least that isn't as bad as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - the former DNC Chairwoman who did the spending - claiming she knew nothing about it.


----------



## depotoo

Trump never claimed it wasn’t in the constitution, silly, like Tom Perez falsely claimed.  





L.K.Eder said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but we are not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell trump that then, hero.
Click to expand...


----------



## jc456

just more blah, blah, blah from the left.  cry me a fking river.


----------



## easyt65

Perez only proves Leftists and snowflakes still have not moved past Hillary losing the election...

Libs be like,_ "Turn those voting machines back on, turn those voting machines back on...it can't be over!"_


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

L.K.Eder said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but we are not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell trump that then, hero.
Click to expand...


No need.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

L.K.Eder said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
Click to expand...

Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...


----------



## L.K.Eder

andaronjim said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...
Click to expand...

that makes no sense whatsoever. in 2012, and in 2008 the popular vote winner also won the EC. in landslides.

please do not try again.


----------



## Hugo Furst

L.K.Eder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that makes no sense whatsoever. in 2012, and in 2008 the popular vote winner also won the EC. in landslides.
> 
> please do not try again.
Click to expand...


Did he win the election because he won the popular vote, or because he won the Electoral vote?


----------



## jc456

L.K.Eder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy who Democrats all said "Hey, let's put this guy in charge"
> 
> Tom Perez Lectures in Front of Law School Crowd That Electoral College 'Not Part of Constitution'
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that makes no sense whatsoever. in 2012, and in 2008 the popular vote winner also won the EC. in landslides.
> 
> please do not try again.
Click to expand...

no he didn't he won with the electoral college.  I challenge you to post where he won by popular vote.

← 2004 *November 4, 2008* 2012 →
*All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout* 58.2%[1]






 1.5 pp


 


*Nominee* *Barack Obama* John McCain
*Party* Democratic Republican
*Home state* Illinois Arizona
*Running mate* *Joe Biden* Sarah Palin
*Electoral vote* *365* 173
*States carried* *28 + DC + NE-02* 22
*Popular vote* *69,498,516* 59,948,323
*Percentage* *52.9%* 45.7%


----------



## Hugo Furst

L.K.Eder said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that makes no sense whatsoever. in 2012, and in 2008 the popular vote winner also won the EC. in landslides.
> 
> please do not try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he win the election because he won the popular vote, or because he won the Electoral vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow, deep.
Click to expand...

stuck for the answer?


----------



## L.K.Eder

a simple tweet by trump in 2012 sends you maggots scrambling, apparently.


----------



## jc456

L.K.Eder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Dems hate the EC until it works in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." ~Trump in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when a flaming liberal who wants to fundamentally transform America gets in office.  Otherwise, it works quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that makes no sense whatsoever. in 2012, and in 2008 the popular vote winner also won the EC. in landslides.
> 
> please do not try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no he didn't he won with the electoral college.  I challenge you to post where he won by popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you challenge me, engrish speaker? wow. how about you read what i wrote, and then try to understand it. see you next week.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha here.


----------



## Pogo

DGS49 said:


> Perez is an idiot.
> 
> As for the myth that HRC would have won a popular-vote election, one might note the following:
> 
> Had the rules been changed prior to the start of the first primaries, the entire election cycle would have played out totally differently.  The entire focus during both the primaries and the general election would have been the most populous states.  Iowa?  WGAS? There is no telling who would have won the nominations on either side, but the probability is that Sanders would have won for the Democrats.  In the Republican field with so many good candidates running, it is likely that money would have been a bigger factor.  It is unknowable.
> 
> With the rules as they were, millions of Republicans in Blue states simply declined to vote, especially in California, where the Senate race pitted one Democrat versus another Democrat.
> 
> Next time, if a popular vote format would be adopted (not practically possible), Trump would beat anyone currently in the Democrat "firmament."  Joe Biden would likely be the Dem nominee, but his history is so full of public idiocy, he would have to win on policy, and with his party so far to the Left, he would lose in a landslide.
> 
> Perez is an idiot.





blastoff said:


> Gee, the dimocrat party elects a mental midget as their chairman.
> 
> This is dog bites man stuff.





depotoo said:


> With his credentials, and yet doesn’t know that?.  Somethings wrong with this picture.   Someone might want to check his credentials are legit.   Lol





NightFox said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> With his credentials, and yet doesn’t know that?.  Somethings wrong with this picture.   Someone might want to check his credentials are legit.   Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming he doesn't know that .....
> 
> Personally I suspect that he is well aware of the fact that the electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution and choose to intentionally mislead his audience in order to garner support for his "cause" and provide a talking point to help the useful idiots spread his "message".
> 
> How likely do you think it is that there are law students that attended his lecture out there right now arguing for the elimination of the EC and using the "it's not part of the Constitution" talking point because that's what the DNC Chair told 'em.
Click to expand...


Anybody find a transcript yet?  Any actual evidence of the quote in context?

No?

Here's why it matters.  As I noted back in post 18 all we have is a really bad half-unintelligible voice recorder file which is also conveniently edited to BEGIN with the statement in the title of this thread.  That means we are denied whatever part of the speech led up to it and set up the statement (if it even _is_ what he's saying).

And that matters because, judging by what FOLLOWS the statement, what the speaker is talking about is not the Electoral College structure itself, but the "winner take all" method of executing it, which _indeed _is not part of the Constitution, which was adopted by a state-snowball effect soon after the country began, and which James Madison, a major author of the Electoral College, advocated a Constitutional Amendment_ to abolish._

Going by the little selectively-edited part of the speech we do have (and assuming whoever wrote down the horrible audio file is accurate), it sounds like _that _--- the WTA system --- is what the speaker's referring to.  That explains both the part of the speech after the quote, as well as why it was edited specifically to start at that point.  Because if it's heard in context it's a whole different statement.

Tried to essplain this yesterday.  Summa y'all just open wide and swallow whatever you think is gen-you-whine snake oil.  Apparently now all it takes is a horribly-recorded sound file recorded from inside a closet, selectively edited.  And this passes for "evidence".

Somebody find a legitimate recording (in full) of this speech, and we'll talk turkey.


----------



## Hugo Furst

English, please.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> English, please.



Hey, nobody's interested in your sexual fantasies.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nobody's interested in your sexual fantasies.
Click to expand...


and I"m not interested in yours.

I merely want the post I responded to translated


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nobody's interested in your sexual fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I"m not interested in yours.
> 
> I merely want the post I responded to translated
Click to expand...


I don't see where you quoted one.  

I figured you got USMB mixed up with your --- uh, lunch order.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nobody's interested in your sexual fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I"m not interested in yours.
> 
> I merely want the post I responded to translated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see where you quoted one.
> 
> I figured you got USMB mixed up with your --- uh, lunch order.
Click to expand...



Seems there is a reason for that:

"This message by rightwinger has been removed from public view. Deleted by rightwinger, 23 minutes ago.       
25 minutes ago Show"

He must not have been able to translate it


----------



## TheOldSchool

The EC is broken and obsolete


----------



## Hugo Furst

TheOldSchool said:


> The EC is broken and obsolete


nope

still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.


----------



## TheOldSchool

WillHaftawaite said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
Click to expand...

No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
Click to expand...


I'm uh, preeeeettty sure they get to vote in small states too.

The issue comes in when that small state votes 50%-plus-one for Candy X and 49.9% vote for Y, and the state electors then tell the latter, "your vote didn't count".

Or any percentage for that matter.

That's exactly why our voter participation rate is abysmally low.  55% in the last one.  45% of the electorate shrugged and thought, "what's the point?".


----------



## Hugo Furst

TheOldSchool said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
Click to expand...



The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
Click to expand...


English, please?  

Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> English, please?




That was English.




Pogo said:


> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?



nope, system works fine.

May  not always agree with it, but it works.

Question for you...

Should the desires of the majority of states matter?

when dealing with a new, or deletion of an old,  Amendment to the Constitution be left up to a mere majority?

instead of 2/3 of the states, Senate, and House, just half +1?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

easyt65 said:


> Perez only proves Leftists and snowflakes still have not moved past Hillary losing the election...
> 
> Libs be like,_ "Turn those voting machines back on, turn those voting machines back on...it can't be over!"_


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ScienceRocks said:


> Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?



Your party?  Why does your profile claim that you are a blue dog?  You do know what that means, right?

It means you have nothing in common with Perez and shouldn't give him the time of day!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ScienceRocks said:


> The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States *Constitution* provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the *Electoral College* originally functioned.



I really wish liberals would learn to read!  It would solve so many of their problems!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> when dealing with a new, or deletion of an old,  Amendment to the Constitution be left up to a mere majority?
> 
> instead of 2/3 of the states, Senate, and House, just half +1?
Click to expand...


Uh, it is 3/4 of the states!


----------



## Hugo Furst

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> when dealing with a new, or deletion of an old,  Amendment to the Constitution be left up to a mere majority?
> 
> instead of 2/3 of the states, Senate, and House, just half +1?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, it is 3/4 of the states!
Click to expand...



odd...

10 hours, and he didn't correct me.


----------



## kiwiman127

A totally ignorant President.
Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

kiwiman127 said:


> A totally ignorant President.
> Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)



You missed the context.  He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution!  Dumb ass!

Your web site is a dumb ass web site.


----------



## Thinker101

Pogo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Replace" based on what?  The OP didn't even link the evidence. I couldn't find it either.
> 
> Yer gonna take ShitSpitters' word for it?
Click to expand...


Sure looks like a link in that post to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688



Perez, like ALL Stalinist democrats hates the Constitution and is waging hot war to destroy it. None of them has ever read the document..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a monster gaffe and if a repub said this, it would be headlines.  Instead, it's been blacked out by the networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said during a lecture Tuesday the Electoral College isn't "a creation of the Constitution."
> 
> Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School's Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.
> 
> "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."
> 
> Perez went on to note the first state to pass such a measure was Maryland.
> 
> Contrary to Perez's claim, the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College in Article II, and the 12th Amendment details the process by which electors will meet and vote for president and vice president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to the speech?
> 
> Actually -- link to anything?
Click to expand...





You are such a retard, paint huffer..

Clueless? DNC Chair Perez Did Not Know This About The Electoral College


----------



## Uncensored2008

ScienceRocks said:


> Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?



You want to replace him with at REPUBLICAN?

Damn Truthy, that's the smartest thing you've ever vomited...


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> As constituted today......It's not




DERP


----------



## mudwhistle

easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688





easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688


----------



## kiwiman127

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A totally ignorant President.
> Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the context.  He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution!  Dumb ass!
> 
> Your web site is a dumb ass web site.
Click to expand...


Your hero said it.  You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
Trump said it. It’s well known that Trump is ignorant about the Constitution.
Trump Time Capsule #35: Two Corinthians, and Twelve Constitution


----------



## Slyhunter

kiwiman127 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A totally ignorant President.
> Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the context.  He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution!  Dumb ass!
> 
> Your web site is a dumb ass web site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hero said it.  You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> Trump said it. It’s well known that Trump is ignorant about the Constitution.
> Trump Time Capsule #35: Two Corinthians, and Twelve Constitution
Click to expand...

link to someone saying Trump is perfect, who actually voted for Trump, like myself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kiwiman127 said:


> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.


----------



## kiwiman127

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
Click to expand...


And that means what?
I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.


----------



## Care4all

Stratford57 said:


> View attachment 156717


  hogwash!
Clinton won the popular vote in the primary, she also won the delegate vote, with or without the super delegates....bernie won none of the categories....Hillary won them all, no matter which way you counted it....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kiwiman127 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
Click to expand...


So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is broken and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
Click to expand...


Answer for you: "No".

*Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
All men are created equal; all states are not.

My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".

And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went, 
"wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.

Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.

Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.

And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.

I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.


----------



## Pogo

kiwiman127 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
Click to expand...


Apparently Ray's never seen what a convention looks like before.

He should ask Geaux4it .  Dood knows some unusual ones.


----------



## Pogo

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A totally ignorant President.
> Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the context.  He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution!  Dumb ass!
> 
> Your web site is a dumb ass web site.
Click to expand...


Obviously that's not his intent at all, considering "fire the sumbitches".
Not that he didn't warn the electorate that he was going that way with his threat to "open up libel laws", so to be fair the blame falls on those who heard that warning and voted for him anyway.

But it's a special kind of irony to note "you missed the context" considering the topic of this thread.


----------



## Pogo

Thinker101 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we please replace this guy with someone that understands the constitutions to lead our party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Replace" based on what?  The OP didn't even link the evidence. I couldn't find it either.
> 
> Yer gonna take ShitSpitters' word for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure looks like a link in that post to me.
Click to expand...


Sure looks like you haven't merited your screen name --- there was no link at the time of that post.
Dumbass.


----------



## kiwiman127

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
Click to expand...


I can see you are ignorant of the fact, that Independents/moderates are the largest bloc of voters in America and it's numbers are growing, unlike your narrow-minded ideology.  Can you dig that, goose-stepper?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kiwiman127 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are ignorant of the fact, that Independents/moderates are the largest bloc of voters in America and it's numbers are growing, unlike your narrow-minded ideology.  Can you dig that, goose-stepper?
Click to expand...


Sorry PeeWeeMan, but the election  results over the last ten years doesn't support that.  Since DumBama, the Republicans have made historic gains.  The only reason Obama got reelected is because people liked  him  on a personal level, but on a policy level, people elected Republicans to leadership to stop him. 

Like it or not, we are a two-party government and will likely always be.  If neither party supports your interests, all you can do is vote which one is the closest.  Third party votes is like throwing your vote in the garbage can.  Might as well save the gasoline and stay home on election  day.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see you are ignorant of the fact, that Independents/moderates are the largest bloc of voters in America and it's numbers are growing, unlike your narrow-minded ideology.  Can you dig that, goose-stepper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry PeeWeeMan, but the election  results over the last ten years doesn't support that.  Since DumBama, the Republicans have made historic gains.  The only reason Obama got reelected is because people liked  him  on a personal level, but on a policy level, people elected Republicans to leadership to stop him.
> 
> Like it or not, we are a two-party government and will likely always be.  If neither party supports your interests, all you can do is vote which one is the closest.  Third party votes is like throwing your vote in the garbage can.  Might as well save the gasoline and stay home on election  day.
Click to expand...


If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.

Kiwi is correct -- the largest political party faction in these United States is "none".   And for reasons already outlined, the WTA EC is anathema.  Because it perpetuates that dead-end Duopoly.

---- A Duopoly, we should note, that _did not exist_ when the WTA was snowballed into existence.  At that time new political parties were bubbling up every other week, and POTUS voters were voting for people rather than paries anyway.  Andrew Jackson, commonly called the first "Democrat", didn't even _have _a political party when he ran for the office.  The party evolved from what were simply called for lack of an official term, "Jacksonians".


----------



## OldLady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
Click to expand...

I think he's a New Zealander.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> still gives the small states a say in the election of the president.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
Click to expand...


you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?

I don't.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania the only say in the election, and took it away from everybody else.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are top 10 in population, and Wisconsin is top 20.  None of those are "small states."  The system failed to the point where a President was elected with a deficit of 3,000,000 votes.  The system is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.

What don't you GET about that?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Pogo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system has prevented the 14-18 most populous states from installing the president of their choice since Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
Click to expand...

What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?


----------



## Blackrook

Democrats commit voter fraud in every election, and if we had popular vote to elect the President, the Democrats could easily steal every election with illegal aliens, convicted felons, and dead people voting Democrat.


----------



## OldLady

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
Click to expand...

If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.


----------



## kiwiman127

OldLady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he's a New Zealander.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm a nationalized US citizen with dual citizenship.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.



To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.


----------



## Hugo Furst

OldLady said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
Click to expand...



as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.

one person= one vote?

they dont'.

No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.

Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?


Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?


----------



## OldLady

WillHaftawaite said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
Click to expand...

_No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_

Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.


----------



## Hugo Furst

OldLady said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
Click to expand...




OldLady said:


> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.



"Hey, this guy wants to be my president, but we're not good enough for him to come see us in person.  Why should I vote for him?"


----------



## Slyhunter

OldLady said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
Click to expand...

Because the one in California is collecting Welfare and the one in Mississippi is paying his bills.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
Click to expand...


A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.  

The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

kiwiman127 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A totally ignorant President.
> Ignorant Trump Promises To Defend Article 12 Of Constitution (There Are Only 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the context.  He would defend EVERYTHING in the Constitution!  Dumb ass!
> 
> Your web site is a dumb ass web site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hero said it.  You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> Trump said it. It’s well known that Trump is ignorant about the Constitution.
> Trump Time Capsule #35: Two Corinthians, and Twelve Constitution
Click to expand...


Do we really have to drag out the 57 states comment again?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

kiwiman127 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero said it. You Trumpsters actually believe Trump is perfect. He isn’t God, who is the only one who perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156970
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that means what?
> I never voted for Obama or anyone with the last name of Clinton.  I also did not vote for Dotard Trump, who is even worse at being president, than I ever imagined. It's just plain scary.
> I know you goose-steppers can't quite handle the fact, that there are people    that seriously think for themselves and don't need a very narrow ideology to tell them what to think and what to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't vote.  That's probably very good for the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he's a New Zealander.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm a nationalized US citizen with dual citizenship.
Click to expand...


No.  You are not.  

You might be a naturalized US citizen, but not nationalized.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
Click to expand...

Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.

Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
Click to expand...


Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
Click to expand...

Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.

Seems like we don't even need elections in your Trumpland fantasy?  All Trumps all the time. A new kingdom.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
Click to expand...


So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
Click to expand...

Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
Click to expand...


Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?

Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!

It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!  

Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
Click to expand...


Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
Click to expand...

Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.

If you oppose democracy go live under a king.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
Click to expand...


It is designed to offset their relative lack of the state's representation in the House.

This is a perfect example of why I know you haven't been to high school yet and learned about the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
Click to expand...



Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution?  Of course you didn't!  You have never read it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.


----------



## KatieK

I


Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
Click to expand...

The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled by an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution?  Of course you didn't!  You have never read it.
Click to expand...

Did you know you are completely against democracy, like all fascists?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
Click to expand...


Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.

Is there no end to you political ignorance?


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
Click to expand...

A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
Click to expand...

You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.



In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution?  Of course you didn't!  You have never read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know you are completely against democracy, like all fascists?
Click to expand...


I am for a representative democracy, which is what a republic is!

Our government is the worst type of government on earth, except for every other type.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
Click to expand...

It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know the word "democracy" never appears in the Constitution?  Of course you didn't!  You have never read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know you are completely against democracy, like all fascists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am for a representative democracy, which is what a republic is!
> 
> Our government is the worst type of government on earth, except for every other type.
Click to expand...

When the majority vote against someone like Trump but he wins anyway, you don't have a representative democracy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.



Yes, democracy gets  to choose the representatives, but it does not mean the majority rules.  The representative votes or legislates the way he or she deems necessary.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, democracy gets  to choose the representatives, but it does not mean the majority rules.  The representative votes or legislates the way he or she deems necessary.
Click to expand...

Untrue here, where the majority did not get their elected representative in the top spot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
Click to expand...


And just where is "here" at?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
Click to expand...


Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?

I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
Click to expand...

Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, democracy gets  to choose the representatives, but it does not mean the majority rules.  The representative votes or legislates the way he or she deems necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue here, where the majority did not get their elected representative in the top spot.
Click to expand...


No,  the majority of each state got their candidate in.  The EC of each state voted according to the will of the voters.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
Click to expand...


How do we accomplish that?

Oh, the Electoral College is one way!

I am glad you agree!


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
Click to expand...

America.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
Click to expand...


You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we accomplish that?
> 
> Oh, the Electoral College is one way!
> 
> I am glad you agree!
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with it.  The courts take care of the minority and protect it from the majority.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majority rule is a disaster.  When you get to high school ask your history teacher how they had to handle voting in an Athenian democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
Click to expand...


No more than you are.

You consider Trump an elite?

So was everyone else running in the last election.

In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
Click to expand...

I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
Click to expand...


It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
Click to expand...

A billionaire isn't an elite?  Care to tell us what one is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Nothing to do with it. The courts take care of the minority and protect it from the majority.



Perhaps you should attend a NFL game and  explain  that to the clowns kneeling during the National Anthem.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...


Republics are representative in nature and no one says the majority rules, for reasons which you stated for yourself.  So, you are saying that you don't understand yourself?


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  That's as it should be.  One man one vote.
> 
> If you oppose democracy go live under a king.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
Click to expand...

So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you must be ruled by your betters?  Not hard to find those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
Click to expand...


No, there is nothing elite about Bernie Sanders.  The man has never held a real job in his lifetime.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with it. The courts take care of the minority and protect it from the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should attend a NFL game and  explain  that to the clowns kneeling during the National Anthem.
Click to expand...

Never heard of the First Amendment?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...


Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republics are representative in nature and no one says the majority rules, for reasons which you stated for yourself.  So, you are saying that you don't understand yourself?
Click to expand...

Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter  if I oppose democracy or not because we live in a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
Click to expand...


Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.

You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
Click to expand...

More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with it. The courts take care of the minority and protect it from the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should attend a NFL game and  explain  that to the clowns kneeling during the National Anthem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never heard of the First Amendment?
Click to expand...


It sounds more like you haven't heard  of it.  The amendments  apply to government--not  private industry.  I can't  go to work Monday and tell my boss he's a complete asshole. He  can fire me for it  and it's not protected by the Constitution  because he is not a government entity.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A billionaire isn't an elite?  Care to tell us what one is?
Click to expand...


He was not a politician.

he has not been part of the ruling class the majority of his life.

Billionaires may run this country, but they run it behind the scenes.

the 'elites' get elected to office, and stay there as long as possible.

after they leave office, they try to continue running it from outside DC,


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> 
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republics are representative in nature and no one says the majority rules, for reasons which you stated for yourself.  So, you are saying that you don't understand yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.
Click to expand...


Again, you are under the false assumption that a republic is majority rule.  Drop that from your vocabulary.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
Click to expand...

There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just where is "here" at?
> 
> 
> 
> America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
Click to expand...


I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A billionaire isn't an elite?  Care to tell us what one is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not a politician.
> 
> he has not been part of the ruling class the majority of his life.
> 
> Billionaires may run this country, but they run it behind the scenes.
> 
> the 'elites' get elected to office, and stay there as long as possible.
> 
> after they leave office, they try to continue running it from outside DC,
Click to expand...

Billionaires run the country but they aren't elite.  Are you really that stupid?


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected. You need to be ruled by an elite. In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with ruling over the rest of us no matter what we believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a majority rule, the minority is not protected.  That's what majority vote  is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be done, we do it here where the majority is not allowed to vote away the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we accomplish that?
> 
> Oh, the Electoral College is one way!
> 
> I am glad you agree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with it.  The courts take care of the minority and protect it from the majority.
Click to expand...



ohhh??  protect??? omigod....  omigod

can't believe I''m so shocked


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
Click to expand...


Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!

You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A billionaire isn't an elite?  Care to tell us what one is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not a politician.
> 
> he has not been part of the ruling class the majority of his life.
> 
> Billionaires may run this country, but they run it behind the scenes.
> 
> the 'elites' get elected to office, and stay there as long as possible.
> 
> after they leave office, they try to continue running it from outside DC,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Billionaires run the country but they aren't elite.  Are you really that stupid?
Click to expand...



apparently, not as stupid as  you.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.



Trump represents the majority of geographic America.  No one wants  to be ruled by two cities.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
Click to expand...

Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
Click to expand...


Who is  "they?"


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the majority of geographic America.  No one wants  to be ruled by two cities.
Click to expand...

Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
Click to expand...





   ^^^


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
Click to expand...


hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.

Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
Click to expand...

The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
Click to expand...


Really?  So what  are you going  to do about it because we still live by the Constitution.  If you don't like it, perhaps it's time for you to find another country to live in.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
Click to expand...



Oh, now fowks!  We need to back off a widdle bit!  We hurt her widdle feewings and she has gone over from stupid wiberal to totawwy unhinged anarchist.

Great job folks!

That's another one for the win column!


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
Click to expand...


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
Click to expand...




awwwwwwwwwwww

just deal with it.....


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
Click to expand...

It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.


----------



## Markle

Pogo said:


> Link to the speech?
> 
> Actually -- link to anything?



Don't you believe it is true?  Why not keep up with your party?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
Click to expand...


Who has Trump fucked over?


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
Click to expand...

I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> 
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
Click to expand...


well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
Click to expand...

Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
Click to expand...


Eat?

you know what?

you are


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
Click to expand...

I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> I deal with, they won't. And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.



So  I presume you are hoping for a new civil war?


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
Click to expand...


when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
Click to expand...


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.
Click to expand...

No, I'll be pulling the terrified children from their walk-in closets.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
Click to expand...


Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
Click to expand...


You know where I live?  Give me the address!

Yes, I have food and water and guns.  My daughters are excellent shots also.  One is an Army officer.

I have no fear for my neighbors as many are rednecks and possess even more superior firepower.  The vast majority of my neighborhood are senior enlisted and officers in the Army. Come and get us!  

All you libs will do is clog up under the bridges with your dead bodies as they wash downstream.

Hmmm.  Maybe I should invest in flood insurance after all.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal with, they won't. And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  I presume you are hoping for a new civil war?
Click to expand...

There will be no war. There will be anarchy.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'll be pulling the terrified children from their walk-in closets.
Click to expand...


are you a troll a sock?

a misguided soul?

GOD what are you?


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
Click to expand...

Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'll be pulling the terrified children from their walk-in closets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you a troll a sock?
> 
> a misguided soul?
> 
> GOD what are you?
Click to expand...

If you have nothing to say, don't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deal with, they won't. And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  I presume you are hoping for a new civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no war. There will be anarchy.
Click to expand...


There will?  That would be great.  I have a couple  of boxes  of old ammo I need to get rid  of.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'll be pulling the terrified children from their walk-in closets.
Click to expand...


You must know a lot about closets.  How long have you been out, or is that kind of question too soon?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
Click to expand...


I think she means pansy-ass liberals like her.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know where I live?  Give me the address!
> 
> Yes, I have food and water and guns.  My daughters are excellent shots also.  One is an Army officer.
> 
> I have no fear for my neighbors as many are rednecks and possess even more superior firepower.  The vast majority of my neighborhood are senior enlisted and officers in the Army. Come and get us!
> 
> All you libs will do is clog up under the bridges with your dead bodies as they wash downstream.
> 
> Hmmm.  Maybe I should invest in flood insurance after all.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them.  They also outnumber you many times over.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
Click to expand...


How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes? 
How did Trump fuck you over on trade? 
How  did Trump fuck you over on wages? 
How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy? 
How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?  

I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she means pansy-ass liberals like her.
Click to expand...

There is nothing pansy-ass about a liberal.  When you elect a king we hang him.


----------



## skye

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> just deal with it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with, they won't.  And when it's time to eat the rich I won't stand in their way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when it's time to eat the rich, they'll use you as an hors d'oeuvres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'll be pulling the terrified children from their walk-in closets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must know a lot about closets.  How long have you been out, or is that kind of question too soon?
Click to expand...



he/ she/ it

joined today

only heavens knows....what is it!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.



If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
Click to expand...

Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
Click to expand...




KatieK said:


> I can help rebuild just fine



no doubt you will be used.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who has Trump fucked over?
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
Click to expand...


What  consumer protections?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
Click to expand...

No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
Click to expand...


Like who?  

Describe these masses that will get even better tax breaks under his new plan?  You do realize that less people will be paying income tax under his plan.

Describe these masses that won't be paying ridiculous payments and high deductibles for insurance they don't want or need and would never pay them a dime!

Describe these masses who now have jobs since the unemployment rate is fast approaching full employment.

Describe these masses who despite all of the good things happening in this country, who can't even get across town without public assistance and are going to raid the countryside for their sustenance against a vastly superior force of rednecks with guns.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone including himself, so far.  The Trump name will soon be one of pure shame.  50% there already,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
Click to expand...

American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
Click to expand...


How are you going to clean up your own blood?


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
Click to expand...


dahling...

you gonna be one of the one in chains..

and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no civil war.  There will be anarchy and those like you will be the first against the walls you built to protect yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly there sweetheart!  I am military trained and armed to the teeth.  Come at me!
> 
> You, on the other hand, cannot handle yourself in a message board debate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed is why you will be the first to die.  They know where you live and you likely have food, water, and daughters in addition to guns.  A walled-in walking target for a mob hell bent on payback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is  "they?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The masses people like Trump fuck over daily.  That won't last for much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like who?
> 
> Describe these masses that will get even better tax breaks under his new plan?  You do realize that less people will be paying income tax under his plan.
> 
> Describe these masses that won't be paying ridiculous payments and high deductibles for insurance they don't want or need and would never pay them a dime!
> 
> Describe these masses who now have jobs since the unemployment rate is fast approaching full employment.
> 
> Describe these masses who despite all of the good things happening in this country, who can't even get across town without public assistance and are going to raid the countryside for their sustenance against a vastly superior force of rednecks with guns.
Click to expand...

Think zombies with guns but not medical care and food when the shit hits the fan.  And you have food, and other things that will matter then but not your life.  Your castle will become your tomb.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
Click to expand...

I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.


----------



## Markle

KatieK said:


> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.



You too skipped Civics and American History didn't you?  You're right, we do NOT live in a Democracy.  We never have and never will.  What grade are you in?

The founding fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of a republic, defined as rule by representatives of the people.  And the United States is a republic with a constitution that deliberately restrains democracy by limiting majority rule, on the national level, to a few areas where the federal government has been granted a small number of specific powers.

Read more: Articles: A Republic, If You Can Keep It


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
Click to expand...

No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.


----------



## KatieK

Markle said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You too skipped Civics and American History didn't you?
> 
> The founding fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of a republic, defined as rule by representatives of the people.  And the United States is a republic with a constitution that deliberately restrains democracy by limiting majority rule, on the national level, to a few areas where the federal government has been granted a small number of specific powers.
> 
> Read more: Articles: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Click to expand...

The Republic is no longer valid.  And I skipped nothing.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> 
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is too bad that most states cannot pass laws to regulate those problems and leave the federal government out of it.

I find it funny that they mention pay-day loans.  Especially since military personnel are strictly forbidden by my states laws from getting pay-day loans.  My oldest daughter once worked for one and they couldn't even hire a guy who was in the National Guard as an employee.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> hun, I hope I'm dead before you get the Constitution thrown out as the law of the land.
> 
> Without it, we wouldn't even qualify as a third world country
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
Click to expand...


you are a joke!

don't you have any shame?

don't you have any dignity?


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
Click to expand...

They do but it's not that time, yet.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You too skipped Civics and American History didn't you?
> 
> The founding fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of a republic, defined as rule by representatives of the people.  And the United States is a republic with a constitution that deliberately restrains democracy by limiting majority rule, on the national level, to a few areas where the federal government has been granted a small number of specific powers.
> 
> Read more: Articles: A Republic, If You Can Keep It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republic is no longer valid.  And I skipped nothing.
Click to expand...



If that is true (which I doubt) you definitely need a refresher course.  Your ignorance on this topic is amazing!  Usually someone has to suffer a traumatic brain injury to get that messed up!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I didn't get  fucked over by Trump.   How did you?  Give us details.
> 
> 
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto
Click to expand...


So what your post says is that we are going  to stop ambulance chasers from  suing banks out of business.   This is a bad thing?  It does  not  stop individuals from redress,  it only stops collective attacks that would cost other customers much more money to do banking.  Protecting our businesses is a good thing.


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be so much thrown out as it will simply no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
Click to expand...

Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
Click to expand...


you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...

they you will be utilized as best they see fit.

either as a house slave, or a field slave.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
Click to expand...


Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trade, taxes, foreign policy, wages, consumer protection.  He's already fucked you but you are too stupid to notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your post says is that we are going  to stop ambulance chasers from  suing banks out of business.   This is a bad thing?  It does  not  stop individuals from redress,  it only stops collective attacks that would cost other customers much more money to do banking.  Protecting our businesses is a good thing.
Click to expand...

You are protecting the businesses from the very people they are supposedly in business to serve.  Trump protects the powerful and the rich at the expense of everyone else, including you.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> well hun, when that happens, I hope you can afford a ticket to someplace you like, cause you won't want to stay here
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
Click to expand...



Stay the hell out of the way of whom?

of Antifa and the likes of you?

Never.

YOU STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF PATRIOTS!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
Click to expand...


Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...
> 
> they you will be utilized as best they see fit.
> 
> either as a house slave, or a field slave.
Click to expand...

I know what's coming.  I can lay low.  Those like jerkoff cannot.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> no doubt you will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...
> 
> they you will be utilized as best they see fit.
> 
> either as a house slave, or a field slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what's coming.  I can lay low.  Those like jerkoff cannot.
Click to expand...



Scum! ^^^


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stay the hell out of the way of whom?
> 
> of Antifa and the likes of you?
> 
> Never.
> 
> YOU STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF PATRIOTS!
Click to expand...

Patriots?  This won't be about American politics you damn fool.  This will be about food and medicine.  Politics comes later, much later.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Folks, I have just noticed what I believe to be a record in the making!  KatieK joined this forum today and has already amassed almost 200 posts.  That has to be a record, because she probably got only one or two things correct in those posts.  It sets a new bar for futility that will take a special kind of brain damage to surpass!

I think we owe her a round of applause for quickly becoming the biggest dumb ass liberal on the USMB!


----------



## Markle

KatieK said:


> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him. Not majority rule even in a Republic.



Why would you intentionally boast about your ignorance of our Constitution and our government?  Seems foolish.  But hey, when your opponent is working to destroy themselves, I just stand back and watch.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stay the hell out of the way of whom?
> 
> of Antifa and the likes of you?
> 
> Never.
> 
> YOU STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF PATRIOTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patriots?  This won't be about American politics you damn fool.  This will be about food and medicine.  Politics comes later, much later.
Click to expand...



yeah right

food and medicine 

what a  half wit you are.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Trump fuck  you over on taxes?
> How did Trump fuck you over on trade?
> How  did Trump fuck you over on wages?
> How did Trump fuck you over  on foreign policy?
> How did Trump fuck you over with consumer protection?
> 
> I think it's you that's too stupid to even realize what  you are  talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your post says is that we are going  to stop ambulance chasers from  suing banks out of business.   This is a bad thing?  It does  not  stop individuals from redress,  it only stops collective attacks that would cost other customers much more money to do banking.  Protecting our businesses is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are protecting the businesses from the very people they are supposedly in business to serve.  Trump protects the powerful and the rich at the expense of everyone else, including you.
Click to expand...


Ambulance chasers have made it  so that you can't even  buy a hot  coffee at McDonald's.  People suing  companies all the time  costs consumers money--not industry, because industry passes all their losses onto us.  

This bill does not remove any government oversight on  banks.  It simply stops the money grubbers from suing banks.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should realize that the people you fuck over are not nearly as stupid as you believe and they also like guns and know how to use them. They also outnumber you many times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
Click to expand...

When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.


----------



## Hugo Furst

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prisoners. Extra mouths to feed will not be a luxury that can be afforded then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...
> 
> they you will be utilized as best they see fit.
> 
> either as a house slave, or a field slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what's coming.  I can lay low.  Those like jerkoff cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scum! ^^^
Click to expand...



no...


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one example, Trump has already repealed consumer protections.  Wake up, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What  consumer protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American Legion opposes banking bill that Mike Pence put over the top; asks Trump to veto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your post says is that we are going  to stop ambulance chasers from  suing banks out of business.   This is a bad thing?  It does  not  stop individuals from redress,  it only stops collective attacks that would cost other customers much more money to do banking.  Protecting our businesses is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are protecting the businesses from the very people they are supposedly in business to serve.  Trump protects the powerful and the rich at the expense of everyone else, including you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ambulance chasers have made it  so that you can't even  buy a hot  coffee at McDonald's.  People suing  companies all the time  costs consumers money--not industry, because industry passes all their losses onto us.
> 
> This bill does not remove any government oversight on  banks.  It simply stops the money grubbers from suing banks.
Click to expand...

It stops protections for consumers.


----------



## skye

WillHaftawaite said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> dahling...
> 
> you gonna be one of them in chains..
> 
> and slapped, or worse, every time you open your whiney mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...
> 
> they you will be utilized as best they see fit.
> 
> either as a house slave, or a field slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what's coming.  I can lay low.  Those like jerkoff cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scum! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no...
Click to expand...


no what


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
Click to expand...


Wow!  What a paranoid world you live  in.  How much medication did they give you to sleep at night anyway? 

Helpful suggestion:  Stay away from your television set.  Don't watch anymore  movies.  Perhaps that  will bring  you back  to reality someday.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any truth to that, Hil-Liar would be President,  now wouldn't she?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
Click to expand...


Who are the libs who are going to do all of this mayhem?

Certainly not you!  You are apparently scared of your own shadow!


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can help rebuild just fine, once the streets have run knee deep ni the blood of those who exploited the majority for their own selfish gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
Click to expand...

Most of them won't be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.


----------



## Hugo Furst

skye said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I won't be the target of their wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you wont' matter to them one way or the other, until it's all over...
> 
> they you will be utilized as best they see fit.
> 
> either as a house slave, or a field slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what's coming.  I can lay low.  Those like jerkoff cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scum! ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no what
Click to expand...



chew toy


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a paranoid world you live  in.  How much medication did they give you to sleep at night anyway?
> 
> Helpful suggestion:  Stay away from your television set.  Don't watch anymore  movies.  Perhaps that  will bring  you back  to reality someday.
Click to expand...

Reality is modern life is a house of failing cards.  Ever heard of Puerto Rico?  No power for 75% 30 days later. Still no clean water for 50%.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> When the grid goes down. When the market tanks, When the banks fail. When money is useless but to start a small fire. When the panic starts. When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
Click to expand...



You are a sheep

A     commiecrat sheeple
another commiecrat misguided sheeple


shame on you!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> 
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a paranoid world you live  in.  How much medication did they give you to sleep at night anyway?
> 
> Helpful suggestion:  Stay away from your television set.  Don't watch anymore  movies.  Perhaps that  will bring  you back  to reality someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is modern life is a house of failing cards.  Ever heard of Puerto Rico?  No power for 75% 30 days later. Still no clean water for 50%.
Click to expand...


And are the Puerto Ricans coming to get us???


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
Click to expand...

Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to clean up your own blood?
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
Click to expand...


Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!

Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.

A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a paranoid world you live  in.  How much medication did they give you to sleep at night anyway?
> 
> Helpful suggestion:  Stay away from your television set.  Don't watch anymore  movies.  Perhaps that  will bring  you back  to reality someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is modern life is a house of failing cards.  Ever heard of Puerto Rico?  No power for 75% 30 days later. Still no clean water for 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And are the Puerto Ricans coming to get us???
Click to expand...

They would, if they could get here and at what you have that they do not.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have no blood in this.  That will be those like you hidden behind your little walls and those who die taking you down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
Click to expand...

You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> 
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.
Click to expand...


Why is that going to happen?  The only reason they won't have food is when the warlords of the inner city crime gangs take it for themselves!

You really need to write this down.  It might make a good movie about how NOT to do things!


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> 
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> 
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  What a paranoid world you live  in.  How much medication did they give you to sleep at night anyway?
> 
> Helpful suggestion:  Stay away from your television set.  Don't watch anymore  movies.  Perhaps that  will bring  you back  to reality someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is modern life is a house of failing cards.  Ever heard of Puerto Rico?  No power for 75% 30 days later. Still no clean water for 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And are the Puerto Ricans coming to get us???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would, if they could get here and at what you have that they do not.
Click to expand...


No.  They will eventually rebuild and everything  will be fine just like with every other disaster.  They happen every year, sometimes several times a year, and no mobs as of yet.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the libs who are going to do all of this mayhem?
> 
> Certainly not you!  You are apparently scared of your own shadow!
Click to expand...

Libs?  No, hungry angry masses of normal people now turning savage. Lord of the Flies, American style.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are a joke!
> 
> don't you have any shame?
> 
> don't you have any dignity?
> 
> 
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's modern history, wake up,


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's modern history, wake up,
Click to expand...




you so full of beans

*yawn*

you boring


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame and dignity are useless when mobs are on the move.  The best thing to do is stay the hell out of the way but people like jerkoff make themselves walking targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
Click to expand...

You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No? I thought they outnumbered us many times!
> 
> 
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the libs who are going to do all of this mayhem?
> 
> Certainly not you!  You are apparently scared of your own shadow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libs?  No, hungry angry masses of normal people now turning savage. Lord of the Flies, American style.
Click to expand...


Listen to the song "A Country Boy Can Survive" by Hank Williams Jr. and maybe then you'll understand why urban liberals would stand zero chance.


----------



## Markle

K has created a BORING thread.  Time for her sock Troll award.


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sheep
> 
> A     commiecrat sheeple
> another commiecrat misguided sheeple
> 
> 
> shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism and fascism rise when the people are denied.  And soon they will be unable to find enough food or get a sick child cared for.  Then chaos ensues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's modern history, wake up,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you so full of beans
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> you boring
Click to expand...

Destine to repeat history.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any mob of liberals is going to about as organized as a soup sandwich!
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
Click to expand...


No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do but it's not that time, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when is it that  time?  It wasn't that time during Bush's eight years and some  predicted it was.  It  wasn't that  time when Republicans  gained leadership of Congress and Senate.  It wasn't that time when we took over 2/3 of all governorships in the country.  If now is  not that time, when will that time be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the grid goes down.  When the market tanks,  When the banks fail.  When money is useless but to start a small fire.  When the panic starts.  When the hospitals are awash in the blood of the dead and the bodies pile up too high even to burn let alone bury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the libs who are going to do all of this mayhem?
> 
> Certainly not you!  You are apparently scared of your own shadow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libs?  No, hungry angry masses of normal people now turning savage. Lord of the Flies, American style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to the song "A Country Boy Can Survive" by Hank Williams Jr. and maybe then you'll understand why urban liberals would stand zero chance.
Click to expand...

I know the song.  I also know you won;t have a chance in hell, not when it really hits.  This won't be you farming for potatoes, this will be you trying to keep your house from being burned to the ground just because they can.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them won;t be liberals but they will be desperate and hungry and armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
Click to expand...

Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Markle said:


> K has created a BORING thread.  Time for her sock Troll award.



What are you talking about?  This is fun.  Kinda like when you use a laser pen to run your dog into the couch and he doesn't even realize  it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Markle said:


> K has created a BORING thread.  Time for her sock Troll award.



Yeah, I think it is about time to pull chocks on this tread.  Katie has started making typos and her sentences are making less sense than before.  She needs to take her meds before bed check at the home for the terminally bewildered anyway.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Click to expand...



good grief! what a moron! ^^


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry!  Public transportation doesn't run out where I live!
> 
> Where are they going to get the arms?  Gun control laws means the cities don't have any guns.
> 
> A lot of good an illegal Saturday night special with six rounds is going to do them when I drop them at a quarter mile with my AR-15 and still have 29 rounds left!
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Click to expand...


How are they going to get here?  Walk?

Go take your meds and pile into your bunk.  It is almost bed check time for you.

Goodnight Katie!  Unpleasant dreams!

Oh, don't look under the bed.  There is a conservative down there waiting for you to go to sleep so he can whisper "tax reductions" in your ear!


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to get here?  Walk?
Click to expand...

Yes, and in cars, and trucks, and buses, and they will burn everything in front and behind them that doesn't help them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

KatieK said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> 
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to get here?  Walk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and in cars, and trucks, and buses, and they will burn everything in front and behind them that doesn't help them.
Click to expand...


Ever see a bus ford a river?  Ha hah ha!


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to believe that you can hold off a mob.  Many of the dead thought the same thing and it's the very last thing they thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good grief! what a moron! ^^
Click to expand...

You seem to believe this has never happened?  If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall.  All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days.  Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the majority of geographic America.  No one wants  to be ruled by two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess you could say that there are millions and millions of folks who actually own that dirt.   They use the dirt to create food and the Founders considered them just as worthy as the city folks.   They came up with a way to ensure that 1 or 2 cities cannot become tyrannical.  BTW if you think for one second you live in a pure democracy, you would be tragically ignorant.  Try looking a bit deeper instead of buying the socialist, democrat, communist media lies.  Hillary LOST....get over it.


----------



## KatieK

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they going to get here?  Walk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and in cars, and trucks, and buses, and they will burn everything in front and behind them that doesn't help them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever see a bus ford a river?  Ha hah ha!
Click to expand...

That river better be a moat, and even that won't save your sorry ass.  When there's no food in the city do you think the hungry masses are just going to sit on their hands?  Nope.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the majority of geographic America.  No one wants  to be ruled by two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you could say that there are millions and millions of folks who actually own that dirt.   They use the dirt to create food and the Founders considered them just as worthy as the city folks.   They came up with a way to ensure that 1 or 2 cities cannot become tyrannical.  BTW if you think for one second you live in a pure democracy, you would be tragically ignorant.  Try looking a bit deeper instead of buying the socialist, democrat, communist media lies.  Hillary LOST....get over it.
Click to expand...

Clinton got the most votes.  Deal with it, cuck.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand, but I help train special operations troops in urban combat environments.
> 
> 
> 
> You don;t live in the urban.  And you wouldn't survive there once they take over.  And they will, warlord like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good grief! what a moron! ^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe this has never happened?  If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall.  All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days.  Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.
Click to expand...



you are sounding like a troll

I am not interested in wasting  more of my time with you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> You seem to believe this has never happened? If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall. All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days. Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.



Rome  didn't fall because of no food in  the  stores  and  banks  failing.   But what the hell.......Mooochelle said  we  are  all to fat anyway, so maybe not having  food for a while  is a  solution. 

If you don't  want  the power grid to fail, don't buy an electric  car  that the Democrats are  constantly trying  to  push us to.  

Problem solved.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.



Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to believe this has never happened? If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall. All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days. Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome  didn't fall because of no food in  the  stores  and  banks  failing.   But what the hell.......Mooochelle said  we  are  all to fat anyway, so maybe not having  food for a while  is a  solution.
> 
> If you don't  want  the power grid to fail, don't buy an electric  car  that the Democrats are  constantly trying  to  push us to.
> 
> Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Cars have nothing to do with the power grid being taken down.  And it will be.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
Click to expand...

I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
Click to expand...


Well  get  used  to it because  it's going  to be that  way for another three years and probably seven.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well  get  used  to it because  it's going  to be that  way for another three years and probably seven.
Click to expand...

Not a chance in hell.  Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Clinton got the most votes.  Deal with it, cuck.



Clinton is NOT President...You don't seem to be.dealing with it very well.  I know how you feel, I felt the same way for the past 8 years when the 'clean black man' (as racist Democrats called him) was their sock puppet who danced to the Hillary Hoo Down.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't live in an urban area because I don't like liberals.  On the other hand they cannot survive where I live because there are a lot of others like me and we control the countryside.
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough of you to stand a chance in hell.  And you'll have no communications.  They will take you one farm house at a time and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good grief! what a moron! ^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe this has never happened?  If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall.  All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days.  Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are sounding like a troll
> 
> I am not interested in wasting  more of my time with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you felt the need to say that instead of shutting the fuck up?  Next time just shut it.
Click to expand...




oh    don't scare me...


boring to the max you are.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
Click to expand...


No you are watching fake news.  Get out of the Democrat MSM media echo chamber.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes.  Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton is NOT President...You don't seem to be.dealing with it very well.  I know how you feel, I felt the same way for the past 8 years when the 'clean black man' (as racist Democrats called him) was their sock puppet who danced to the Hillary Hoo Down.
Click to expand...

Clinton isn't president, we'd still be a decent nation if she was.  Oh well, that's life.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> good grief! what a moron! ^^
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to believe this has never happened?  If Rome could fall don't bet that America can't fall.  All it needs is the power grid to fail for more than a few days.  Three days and there's no food in the stores, and no banks to process transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are sounding like a troll
> 
> I am not interested in wasting  more of my time with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you felt the need to say that instead of shutting the fuck up?  Next time just shut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh    don't scare me...
> 
> 
> boring to the max you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
Click to expand...




.........

there. there.....


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are watching fake news.  Get out of the Democrat MSM media echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Nothing fake about any of that.  Trump has already done serious damage but that's how the Democrats win again so so be it.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are sounding like a troll
> 
> I am not interested in wasting  more of my time with you.
> 
> 
> 
> But you felt the need to say that instead of shutting the fuck up?  Next time just shut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh    don't scare me...
> 
> 
> boring to the max you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
Click to expand...



sheep ^^^^

you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you felt the need to say that instead of shutting the fuck up?  Next time just shut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh    don't scare me...
> 
> 
> boring to the max you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
Click to expand...

Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh    don't scare me...
> 
> 
> boring to the max you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
Click to expand...



sheeple


----------



## Rexx Taylor

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheeple
Click to expand...

the new DNC Chairman is actually less intelligent than a typical TitMouse


----------



## KatieK

skye said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheeple
Click to expand...

You somehow manage to suck even as a troll. And the EC needs to be shitcanned and its last piece of garbage Trump with it.


----------



## skye

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheeple
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You somehow manage to suck even as a troll. And the EC needs to be shitcanned and its last piece of garbage Trump with it.
Click to expand...




baaaaaaaaa


----------



## easyt65

The DNC had a chairwoman who ran her own Pakistani spy ring and jeopardized our Natl security...

They ran a criminal and traitor for President..

...and now has someone this (Constitutionally) STUPID as their newest DNC chairman...

Bwuhahahaha...

'Nuff Said!


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes.  Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton is NOT President...You don't seem to be.dealing with it very well.  I know how you feel, I felt the same way for the past 8 years when the 'clean black man' (as racist Democrats called him) was their sock puppet who danced to the Hillary Hoo Down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton isn't president, we'd still be a decent nation if she was.  Oh well, that's life.
Click to expand...


The Clintons are both indecent, smug, pompous,  and criminal.  Thank God they're not in office.  Now all we need to do is rid the U.S. of their influence.  Both should already be in jail.  Billy for rape, Hillary for treason and both for ripping off people in Whitewater.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh    don't scare me...
> 
> 
> boring to the max you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
Click to expand...


Ha!  Ha!  Marxists whine about 'class conflict' when they are the ones creating the classes.  You commie dumbos are are so stupid you don't even realize YOU are the bourgeoisie.  The Proletariat comprise geographic America and it is they who put Trump in office.  How can you be so stupid?


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> English, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you advocating forced relocation in order to vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
Click to expand...


Wrong again.

"States deciding the Presidency" is exactly what the EC system already does. And the WTA approach, which 48 of the 50 states use and the other two use WTA-lite --- completely fucks that up.  James Madison could see that.  That's why he wanted to abolish it.


----------



## Pogo

OldLady said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was English.
> 
> 
> nope, system works fine.
> 
> May  not always agree with it, but it works.
> 
> Question for you...
> 
> Should the desires of the majority of states matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  That's why I ask him if he's advocating forced relocations.

If a Rump voter in California, whose vote is immediately tossed in the trash by the WTA, simply moves to Utah ---- suddenly his vote counts after all.  Same voter, same vote.  Makes no sense.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's even close.

Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
And that was in the '30s.

This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.

And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None"  --- that's highly significant.  And as long as that system  is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well  get  used  to it because  it's going  to be that  way for another three years and probably seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a chance in hell.  Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Most  of the people that voted for him  are quite satisfied.  A great economy, great judges, lowest border crossings  in years, strong stock market, great unemployment  numbers, and that includes first time unemployment  filers.  Everything is great as far  as we're concerned.  Don't let those bogus polls tell you differently: 

Poll: 4 of 10 voters are 'silent Trump supporters'


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer for you: "No".
> 
> *Voters *register to vote --- not 'states'.  When it's time for states to vote, that's what the Senate is for.
> All men are created equal; all states are not.
> 
> My state (for example) went to Congress and declared "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Rump.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".
> 
> And that's utter bullshit.  And in every election it's the exact same bullshit all over again, regardless whose name is plugged in there.  The state to the north of me trudged in there and went,
> "wow, it's incredible --- literally every voter in Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton.  Amazing, we've had two centuries of unanimous vote".  And that's the exact same bullshit.
> 
> Once AGAIN --- this is a major reason we suffer from an atrocious voter participation rate ---- anybody who lives in a "locked red" or a "locked blue" state has no reason to vote for a POTUS at all.  Their state is already decided.  They can vote with the state, vote against the state, or stay home and eat a baloney sandwich --- all three scenaria produce exactliy the same result --- so what's the point of voting at all.
> 
> Second, up to half of those who live in so-called "battleground" or "swing" states ---- a bullshit concept that would not exist at all were it not for the equally bullshitious WTA system ---  will have their votes dumped in the trash.
> 
> And third, nobody who doesn't care to indulge the entrenched Duopoly EVER gets a chance to cast a meaningful vote outside that Duopoly, and that goes for one hundred percent of the 57 states, so the WTA system serves to perpetuate that Duopoly and keep us in the same swamp, _forever_.  If you think that's a reasonable course I've got some nice swampland for sale.
> 
> I dumped the question about the Amendment process because it's irrelevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you prefer to doom the country with the desires of the14-18 most populous states?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
Click to expand...


You're making the case against yourself here.

We haven't touched on it, having plenty of other ammo, but another bleeding scab of the WTA system is that voters in those locked-red or locked-blue states get zero interaction with Presidential candidates, for the same reason their voters don't have any reason to go vote --- it's already decided.  There's no point in Democrat campaigning in Alabama and no point in a Republican campaigning in Massachusetts.  They might as well not exist. 

That's just friggin' stoopid.  We're supposed to be selecting a chief executive here, not marketing a fucking floor cleaner.  And besides perpetuating a Duopoly it also perpetuates the division of "two Americas", a "red" one and a "blue" one.  That's another waste product of the WTA.  Yeah good job there.

So those two candidates, in any year at all, will focus all their time in whatever small handful of states that are designated by polls as "swing states", which is a completely bullshit concept that, again --- would not exist were it not for the scourge of the WTA.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even close.
> 
> Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
> And that was in the '30s.
> 
> This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.
> 
> And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None"  --- that's highly significant.  And as long as that system  is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.
Click to expand...


I think it is changing.  Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians.  The people are speaking  to the party.  It's just  a matter of time when they start listening.  

The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today.  And  I don't  know what a WTA  system is.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
Click to expand...


Yet another post undermining its own position.

Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.

Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing?  Don't y'all GET why that is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another post undermining its own position.
> 
> Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.
> 
> Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing?  Don't y'all GET why that is?
Click to expand...


We know why that is. It's because people don't  take elections seriously.  In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting.  This was prevalent in the last election.  Many Republicans were  pissed off  because Trump became the nominee.  Same thing with the Democrat party.  Hillary is not a very liked person.  Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on  just to vote for him. 

Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state.  How do you think  the  rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election?  What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even close.
> 
> Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
> And that was in the '30s.
> 
> This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.
> 
> And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None"  --- that's highly significant.  And as long as that system  is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is changing.  Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians.  The people are speaking  to the party.  It's just  a matter of time when they start listening.
> 
> The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today.  And  I don't  know what a WTA  system is.
Click to expand...


"WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All"  system used by the Electrical College.  That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash.  That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the  OP is talking about.  That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.

Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but _used _the same Duopoly to get elected.  Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door.  Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the _same _system.

It also recalls Rump's errant tweets calling for "revolution in this country" when he was under the mistaken impression that Mitt Romney had won the popular vote but lost the EC.  Another case of selective logic.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even close.
> 
> Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
> And that was in the '30s.
> 
> This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.
> 
> And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None"  --- that's highly significant.  And as long as that system  is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is changing.  Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians.  The people are speaking  to the party.  It's just  a matter of time when they start listening.
> 
> The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today.  And  I don't  know what a WTA  system is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All"  system used by the Electrical College.  That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash.  That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the  OP is talking about.  That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.
> 
> Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but _used _the same Duopoly to get elected.  Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door.  Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the _same _system.
Click to expand...


There are  only two ways to vote:  The EC system which has worked fine  for us the last couple  of  centuries, or the WTA as you call it.  Either  way, not everybody will have their vote counted.  Either way, there will be  people that don't bother to vote because it's a waste of time as far as they are concerned.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another post undermining its own position.
> 
> Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.
> 
> Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing?  Don't y'all GET why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know why that is. It's because people don't  take elections seriously.  In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting.  This was prevalent in the last election.  Many Republicans were  pissed off  because Trump became the nominee.  Same thing with the Democrat party.  Hillary is not a very liked person.  Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on  just to vote for him.
Click to expand...


Please.  Then why are other countries with actual representative systems seeing 80 and 90 percent participation?  You don't think other countries have not-well-liked politicians?



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state.  How do you think  the  rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election?  What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?



This lame argument of "X number of states deciding an election" has never made a lick of sense.  It still doesn't.

How many millions of votes did Rump get in California?  In New York?  I don't have the number any more and don't feel like looking it up but let's say it's "umpteen million".  How many of those umpteen million votes actually counted?   ZERO, that's how many.   That's because the Electors of California and New York went to Congress and lied, "wow, literally everybody in our state voted for Hillary Clinton".  Which is bullshit.

Now --- how many Californians and New Yorkers _would have_ voted for Rump but didn't bother because they KNEW their vote was not going to count, so what's the point?

There's your 45% staying home.  That's where it's coming from.

The further dimension is that how many -- in any state --- would have voted for Gary  Johnson, or some other third party, but saw no point because regardless which way their state ended up it was going Duopoly?  How many umpteen million voters voted for Hillary only because she was not Rump, or for Rump because he was not Hillary?  How many voters are doing nothing more than playing Tic Tac Toe to BLOCK a candy they want to prevent?

"Voting to block" --- another scourge that would not exist without WTA.

And there's your perpetuation of the same system. The WTA EC makes it impossible to have anything _BUT_ a Duopoly system.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic. We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, democracy gets  to choose the representatives, but it does not mean the majority rules.  The representative votes or legislates the way he or she deems necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue here, where the majority did not get their elected representative in the top spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the majority of each state got their candidate in.  The EC of each state voted according to the will of the voters.
Click to expand...


STILL bullshit.

I'll keep saying this until it sinks in --- my state, considered a "battleground state", meaning The Polls demanded attention since it could have gone either way --- when the votes were counted, went to Congress and lied "Wow, it's amazing -- the entire state of North Carolina voted for Rump". 

And that's _*bullshit*_.  We did no such thing.  Nor did any other state vote unanimously for ANYBODY.  _*Ever*_.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another post undermining its own position.
> 
> Ironically Maine is one of only two states that does not use the WTA system, however it uses a microcosm version of the same thing (Congressional districts), so within that microcosm exists the same fault ---- namely, that any voter who doesn't fall into lockstep with his "EC/WTA unit" (in Maine's case the district, in most states the entire state) --- has no reason to go vote because his or her vote is going to be immediatley tossed in the trash can anyway.
> 
> Don't y'all GET that having only 55% of the electorate show up for an election is an abysmally poor showing?  Don't y'all GET why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know why that is. It's because people don't  take elections seriously.  In some cases, people get so pissed off that they want to show their party how angry they are by not voting.  This was prevalent in the last election.  Many Republicans were  pissed off  because Trump became the nominee.  Same thing with the Democrat party.  Hillary is not a very liked person.  Trump made up for lost voters by newly registered voters that signed on  just to vote for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  Then why are other countries with actual representative systems seeing 80 and 90 percent participation?  You don't think other countries have not-well-liked politicians?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you talk about people feeling disenfranchised because they live in a red or blue state.  How do you think  the  rest of the country would feel if only four or five states decided the election?  What would be the purpose for the other states to get out and vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This lame argument of "X number of states deciding an election" has never made a lick of sense.  It still doesn't.
> 
> How many millions of votes did Rump get in California?  In New York?  I don't have the number any more and don't feel like looking it up but let's say it's "umpteen million".  How many of those umpteen million votes actually counted?   ZERO, that's how many.   That's because the Electors of California and New York went to Congress and lied, "wow, literally everybody in our state voted for Hillary Clinton".  Which is bullshit.
> 
> Now --- how many Californians and New Yorkers _would have_ voted for Rump but didn't bother because they KNEW their vote was not going to count, so what's the point?
> 
> There's your 45% staying home.  That's where it's coming from.
> 
> The further dimension is that how many -- in any state --- would have voted for Gary  Johnson, or some other third party, but saw no point because regardless which way their state ended up it was going Duopoly?  How many umpteen million voters voted for Hillary only because she was not Rump, or for Rump because he was not Hillary?  How many voters are doing nothing more than playing Tic Tac Toe to BLOCK a candy they want to prevent?
> 
> "Voting to block" --- another scourge that would not exist without WTA.
> 
> And there's your perpetuation of the same system. The WTA EC makes it impossible to have anything _BUT_ a Duopoly system.
Click to expand...


What you are failing to realize is that both  systems will leave people out of the loop.  You're trying to claim  only one is.

We do have a WTA system.  We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions.  The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential. 

I live in an all Democrat area, and again, we use the WTA system for our candidates outside of the president.  It makes no  sense for me to vote for a Republican because I have a better chance at hitting the lottery two times  in a month than  a Republican coming close to being elected here.  Unless there are other issues on the ballot, it makes no sense for me to leave the house on election day.

Now if you really want to see some change, perhaps we should start removing the party affiliation by the candidates name.  Only informed people will be able to tell who is Republican, Independent, Democrat.  The rest  will be just taking a luck guess, or will have to dig around before going to vote.


----------



## Pogo

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have a extra bowl of stupid along with a side of mean this morning?
> 
> Why can't you address the content of the post?  You accused me of trolling earlier!  It is nice to see you figured out how to do it effectively!
> 
> It's because you have no idea what I am talking about!
> 
> Is your hair perchance blonde?  If not I suggest becoming a suicide blonde (dyed by your own hand) so people will have lower expectations for your intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> The content of your post is you don't trust the majority even if the minority is protected.  You need to be ruled b y an elite.  In that you trust just as long as it's an elite that you agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need to ruled by an elite?  We have no rulers in the country.  If we had rulers, we would be subjects.
> 
> Is there no end to you political ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a subject, and a slave.  You made yourself one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than you are.
> 
> You consider Trump an elite?
> 
> So was everyone else running in the last election.
> 
> In fact, Trump was LESS an elite than the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing elite about Bernie Sanders.  The man has never held a real job in his lifetime.
Click to expand...


You're thinking of Rump actually.  Sanders has been a Senator, a Congressman before that, a Mayor before that, a filmmaker before that, a writer before that.  He was my Congressman 25 years ago; I know this stuff.

Rump on the other hand has never held a job in his life until January of this year.


----------



## Pogo

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democratic republic.  We are not Rome, just very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
Click to expand...


How the fuck do you know all this about a poster who just joined USMB the same day you posted this?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of your ancestors vote for George Washington?
> 
> I seriously doubt it because he won 69-0.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a good start to a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a good start, but they eventually changed it.  They decided that the fact that the opposition would be in the Vice President position did not promote a peaceful transition of power being likely and revolution by a coup d'etat was incredibly likely.  So much for your democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the nation, which is now it its death throes.  Soon it will be time to eat the rich, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death throes?  You are too young to realize how good you have it now.
> 
> You better hope it doesn't happen, because you and your kind are ill equipped mentally, physically, and intellectually to survive a civil war.  You don't even have weapons because they are scarey looking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck do you know all this about a poster who just joined USMB the same day you posted this?
Click to expand...


Because she's right here, take a look!


----------



## Pogo

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live  in America  and  you don't understand  our system of government, our Constitution, and the concept of equal representation?  My Lord, this  is very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand every bit of it but you can't understand that when the majority doesn't win you don't live in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, we don't live in a democratic republic, we  live  in a representative republic.  We also live by the US  Constitution, and  if  you don't  like the Constitution, then you elect representatives that are willing to change it.  Until that time, the Constitution  is the  rule  of the  land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than happy to change it but it won't be necessary as we will soon have to found several new nations in what once was the U.S.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea WTF you're talking about.  Care to elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution has now outlived its usefulness.  It was unable to stop someone like Trump and therefore is now invalid.
Click to expand...


Ironically -- the Electoral College was created, largely, to do just that --- put a veto on a charlatan.

Only a couple of electors took that responsibility seriously this last round.  I believe there are even some state laws that coerce them to fall into lockstep with the WTA system under penalty of law, or replacement, or both -- which is completely unConstitutional.  So the system is _already _perverted.


----------



## Pogo

Markle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the speech?
> 
> Actually -- link to anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe it is true?  Why not keep up with your party?
Click to expand...


No I wouldn't take ShitSpitter's word for what the fuck time it is considering the source.

And when I posted that I already knew he had no evidence, because I looked it up myself.

And I don't have a "your party".  My political party faction is the largest and most important one in the electorate. -- It's called "None".


----------



## Pogo

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the minority because the majority voted against him.   Not majority rule even in a Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump represents the majority of geographic America.  No one wants  to be ruled by two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you could say that there are millions and millions of folks who actually own that dirt.   They use the dirt to create food and the Founders considered them just as worthy as the city folks.   They came up with a way to ensure that 1 or 2 cities cannot become tyrannical.  BTW if you think for one second you live in a pure democracy, you would be tragically ignorant.  Try looking a bit deeper instead of buying the socialist, democrat, communist media lies.  Hillary LOST....get over it.
Click to expand...


Actually cities weren't players at all when the EC was contrived. The vast majority of the population lived on farms.  That was the Norm.  What *was *a player at the time was Slavery.  And that's a large part of the EC's role --- shunting more power to the slave states than their franchised population would have warranted.

That's where we get the "3/5 of a person" bullshit --- slave states were allowed to count their slaves at a rate of 60% for the purpose of allocating how many white people could represent them, while at the same time granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any citizenship rights.

That's also a big part of the reason four of our first five Presidents -- and eight of the nine first administrations --- were slaveholders form the South, specifically from Virginia, the largest state with the most electoral votes.

So there's your classic example of "one state determining an election".


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually believe that the two party (singular is intentional) is two different things and not simply a two headed monster where one head wears red and the other wears blue, then the fact is the red one since 1988 has prevailed in exactly one Presidential election out of seven, and that one was a squeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some point I don't disagree, but that's why Trump was elected.  At least we on the right are  trying to change our politics.  Actually, it's been going on  for some time between the Tea Party  types and the Establishment.  The Democrats are one solid party.  One thinks like the next hundred of them.  Look at how they are voting in Congress and the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even close.
> 
> Will Rogers put it this way --- "I do not belong to an organized political party; I am a Democrat".
> And that was in the '30s.
> 
> This returns us right back to the pitfall of operating under a Duopoly and a system that shuts out all competition (in this discussion, the WTA system) --- any given voter who may not identify with either iteration of that Duopoly, is left with the Hobson's Choice of either running with the lesser of two evils, or being shut out of the process altogether.
> 
> And considering that the largest political party body in the country is "None"  --- that's highly significant.  And as long as that system  is allowed to perpetuate itself ----- nothing will change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is changing.  Trump beat out mostly establishment and professional politicians.  The people are speaking  to the party.  It's just  a matter of time when they start listening.
> 
> The Democrat party of the 30's, 40's, 50's is not the Democrat party of today.  And  I don't  know what a WTA  system is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "WTA" is what this whole thread is about ---- the "Winner Take All"  system used by the Electrical College.  That's why I keep noting how it throws votes in the trash.  That's what the speaker in the cherrypicked sound clip in the  OP is talking about.  That's why I noted as soon as the thread went up, that the context was deliberately edited out.
> 
> Rump did run, and find success, as a not-part-of-the-system actor, but _used _the same Duopoly to get elected.  Sanders tried to do the same thing but the System locked the door.  Neither one chops down the system --- it just introduces new blood into the _same _system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are  only two ways to vote:  The EC system which has worked fine  for us the last couple  of  centuries, or the WTA as you call it.  Either  way, not everybody will have their vote counted.  Either way, there will be  people that don't bother to vote because it's a waste of time as far as they are concerned.
Click to expand...


"Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a system that perpetuates a Duopoly of two nearly-identical parties that KNOW going in that they're going to share power forever and need not be concerned with any outside alternative.  "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a ridiculous voter participation rate because what's the point.  "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of literally millions of voters getting their votes ground into a garbage disposal.  "Worked fine" cannot fit a description of a system that makes the entire political system dependent on polls to find out whether it's worth leaving the house to go to the polling place, or for a candy to find out whether it's worth going to do a campaign appearance.

I like the line "not everybody will have their vote counted".  Slaves had some experience with that.  So did women.  Great set of precedents there.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.
> 
> We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.



No, we absolutely do not.

If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace.  If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump.  No state does that.  And none would; it would be stupid.

Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count.  Not by a proxy that does wha they want.  There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state.  One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Pogo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.
> 
> We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we absolutely do not.
> 
> If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace.  If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump.  No state does that.  And none would; it would be stupid.
> 
> Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count.  Not by a proxy that does wha they want.  There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state.  One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.
Click to expand...


I  must be confused.  When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote.  I'll discontinue using  that term. 

Yes, we have a  popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency.  Those elections produce a lower percentage  of voters than the  presidential election.  So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout.  And as I  stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC.  So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got the most votes. Deal with it, cuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well  get  used  to it because  it's going  to be that  way for another three years and probably seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a chance in hell.  Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Most  of the people that voted for him  are quite satisfied.  A great economy, great judges, lowest border crossings  in years, strong stock market, great unemployment  numbers, and that includes first time unemployment  filers.  Everything is great as far  as we're concerned.  Don't let those bogus polls tell you differently:
> 
> Poll: 4 of 10 voters are 'silent Trump supporters'
Click to expand...

A Fox poll showing him with a 38% approval rating is not false.  He sucks but idiots like you still like him.


----------



## KatieK

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.
> 
> We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we absolutely do not.
> 
> If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace.  If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump.  No state does that.  And none would; it would be stupid.
> 
> Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count.  Not by a proxy that does wha they want.  There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state.  One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  must be confused.  When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote.  I'll discontinue using  that term.
> 
> Yes, we have a  popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency.  Those elections produce a lower percentage  of voters than the  presidential election.  So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout.  And as I  stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC.  So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.
Click to expand...

With the EC there's no reason for a popular vote on the President since it doesn't fucking matter. Time to be rid of it or stop calling ourselves what we aren't, a democratic republic.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> there. there.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just can't help yourself can you, bitch? No self control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sheep ^^^^
> 
> you are  nothing but a  commicrat sheep......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn something. Why Marxism is on the rise again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha!  Ha!  Marxists whine about 'class conflict' when they are the ones creating the classes.  You commie dumbos are are so stupid you don't even realize YOU are the bourgeoisie.  The Proletariat comprise geographic America and it is they who put Trump in office.  How can you be so stupid?
Click to expand...

Capitalism is what creates the classes.  The rich at the top and the rest at the bottom with a rare few trying to stay in the middle.  And it's only gotten much worse since people like the Bushes and Trump came upon the scene and gave even more breaks and wealth to the top.  But not to worry, the days of literally eating the rich are coming.


----------



## OldLady

WillHaftawaite said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Hey, this guy wants to be my president, but we're not good enough for him to come see us in person.  Why should I vote for him?"
Click to expand...

You must live in one of the swing states, or New Hampshire.  You're spoilt.   No one ever comes to see us (well hardly) and we manage.


----------



## OldLady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN there is no state, anywhere, in this country or any other in the world, that "desires" unanimously.  That's yet another tureen of the same bullshit.
> 
> What don't you GET about that?
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why they wouldn't visit to get the individuals' votes.  I don't know how much "power" the EC gives us.  We have four votes.  California has 55.


----------



## DGS49

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't YOU get that your  way, 14-18 states decide the presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> If it is one (wo)man-one vote, does their location in the country actually matter?  Why is an individual vote from California less valid than one from Mississippi?
> I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as it stands. Rhode Island, Montana, and other small states, have a voice.
> 
> one person= one vote?
> 
> they dont'.
> 
> No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> 
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> 
> 
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand why they wouldn't visit to get the individuals' votes.  I don't know how much "power" the EC gives us.  We have four votes.  California has 55.
Click to expand...


The EC doesn't make everything equal, just more power than you'd have with a  popular vote.  4X10 is 40 electoral votes.  

If you only have one  million registered voters, and only half of them vote for a President (which is typical) then you have no power at all really.


----------



## KatieK

DGS49 said:


> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.


Clinton, who won.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

DGS49 said:


> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.



That would be interesting, especially since Calli would have to give up a portion of their 55 EC votes.


----------



## Hugo Furst

DGS49 said:


> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.





DGS49 said:


> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.



Hillary would have had fewer in Ca, NY,  Trump fewer in Tx, Florida.

Odds are, Trump would still have had the majority


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
Click to expand...

Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.

* President  *
*Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*

 Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55

 Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —

Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —

Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —

Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —

La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —

Others Others  243,129 1.7% —


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
Click to expand...

Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
Click to expand...




KatieK said:


> Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.



Most states are winner take all.

and she lost, by a large margin.

"We call such a thing Math."


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Clinton won the popular vote. Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won. We call such a thing Math.



There  is math and there is liberal  math  which  is what you're trying  to use. 

You want to count up all the  EC votes Hillary might have won in red  states, but fail to understand that she would have probably lost  more if Republicans got a piece of the EC's in blue  states.  It's called a wash. 

If you followed the discussion Pogo and I were having, there are many Republicans that stay home in blue states instead of voting, and there are many Democrats who live in red states that stay home because they know their vote wouldn't count for anything.  A proportional EC distribution would change  the dynamics of voting entirely.


----------



## OldLady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No reason for a candidate to go to those states and make promises, (they likely won't keep anyway), because there aren't enough people there to matter.
> Why would a politician campaign in Rhode Island, when NYC has 7 times the population?
> Why bother stumping in Montana, when Chicago has twice the population?_
> 
> Okay!  Now I get it.  If it were one (wo)man-one vote, Presidential hopefuls might not come make live speeches in my state (for sure they wouldn't, since there are only a million of us) and eat at our local diner.  Or send out armies of young people to ring my bell incessantly and fill my mailbox with garbage flyers.
> WE HAVE TV NOW and internet and all kinds of other newfangled communications which make it unnecessary for a candidate to travel to Bangor in order for me to know who it is and if I want to vote for him/her.
> The EC is, imo, a thing of the past.   I don't know who my "State" is when it comes to EC control, but I sure as hell don't know any of them.  It is a mysterious backroom thing and it is kept that way from all but the partisan monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A candidate must visit your state because of the electoral votes you possess.  Imagine if it were popular vote only.  Then the candidate would  have  no reason to visit your state.  He would have  no reason to send federal aid for hurricanes, tornadoes, or large fires once  he became President.  He would have no  concern  about using  your land for nuclear waste, garbage, or even a new oil refinery.
> 
> The EC does not balance things, but it does help with the unbalancing.  Less  populated  states like yours have  more power  with the EC  than  it would have  with a popular vote.  I mean, if you live in a  state with 3 million people, you have  to assume  that  less than  2 million  are  of voting age, and  out of that 2 million,  less than one  million actually vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd idea, let's try majority rule with protections for minorities. What a plan.
> 
> Tiny states deserve tiny influence.  Size matters, boys.  When the women in your life said it didn't they were just being nice and didn't want to deflate your fragile little "egos".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be all for having enough Senators to represent the population of your state?  After all, when our government was being designed, the idea of equal representation in the Senate would stop mob rule.  You get two Senators for your state and it doesn't matter if your state is Texas or your state is Rhode Island.  That way, every state has power in our legislative process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Rhode Island have the same influence as California or Texas?  Answer, they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: so that all states are equal.  With a representative Senate, Texas, New York and California would control the entire country--just like it would with popular vote.
Click to expand...

Living within the boundaries of a state does not mean you automatically vote a certain way.  That is what I'm saying.  If that were so, "red" states wouldn't have to expend campaign funds, either.  Just let the pundits decide what everyone would choose, state by state and to hell with the people.


----------



## OldLady

KatieK said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the presidency.  Deal with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I am, and I'm watching him destroy the office and ruin the standing of American all over the globe. A weak man leading an even weaker nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well  get  used  to it because  it's going  to be that  way for another three years and probably seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a chance in hell.  Most people already hate him including many who voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Most  of the people that voted for him  are quite satisfied.  A great economy, great judges, lowest border crossings  in years, strong stock market, great unemployment  numbers, and that includes first time unemployment  filers.  Everything is great as far  as we're concerned.  Don't let those bogus polls tell you differently:
> 
> Poll: 4 of 10 voters are 'silent Trump supporters'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Fox poll showing him with a 38% approval rating is not false.  He sucks but idiots like you still like him.
Click to expand...

Yes, but 81% approval rating among Republicans.  So election wise, it's going to take something BIG to change the landscape.


----------



## Ame®icano

easyt65 said:


> DNC head Tom Perez falsely claims Electoral College 'not a creation of the Constitution'
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> "_The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution," Perez said during a __lecture__ at Indiana University Law School. "It doesn’t have to be there."
> 
> The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in __Article II__ of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."_
> 
> 
> This is the same dumbass who just denied knowing anything about and not finding any records to show the previous chairwoman / the DNC gave millions to a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm for a false report containing Russia-generated propaganda against Trump.
> 
> Today - in reaction to all the evidence coming out against Hillary, DWS, Mueller, Holder, Comey, and Obama - libtards and snowflakes be like:
> 
> 
> View attachment 156688



They sure got the winning ticket.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Only choices I see are Booker and Castro


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Capitalism is what creates the classes.  The rich at the top and the rest at the bottom with a rare few trying to stay in the middle.  And it's only gotten much worse since people like the Bushes and Trump came upon the scene and gave even more breaks and wealth to the top.  But not to worry, the days of literally eating the rich are coming.



Did you read your own link on Marxism?  All it does is describe made-up classes.  In America Capitalism and the free pursuit of wealth results in people being able to lift themselves out of socialist class warfare.  Socialism/Marxism encourages people to form a Kleptocracy thinking the 'golden goose' of the so-called 'rich' will continue to lay 'golden eggs.'   What they don't realize is that without monetary reward, the eggs soon dry up and everyone is equally miserable.  So....Instead of decrying Capitalism, get off your butt, embrace it and make something of yourself instead of crying about what others refuse to give you for free.


----------



## Leo123

[QUOTE="Pogo, post: 18464000, member: 41527"

Wrong again.

"States deciding the Presidency" is exactly what the EC system already does. And the WTA approach, which 48 of the 50 states use and the other two use WTA-lite --- completely fucks that up.  James Madison could see that.  That's why he wanted to abolish it.[/QUOTE]

Think of it this way, if Hillary lost LA Trump would have won the popular vote.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
Click to expand...


However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed. 

So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
Click to expand...

In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I don't dispute the fact of the blunder Perez made, but in context, he was trying to make a point about getting rid of the winner takes all apportioning of electoral votes,

which is a valid point.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
Click to expand...



If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.

This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
Click to expand...


What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution. 

Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost? 

Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
Click to expand...

Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton, who won.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
Click to expand...

When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic. It should have been tossed long ago. Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.



The Democrats  loved it too when they were winning  with it.  Now that they're not, they're  crying foul.  Now they want to change the rules so they have a chance at winning.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

KatieK said:


> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land. That seems to have been forgotten here.



Then I guess the United  States isn't the real world?  Because we've been doing  it this way for centuries.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
Click to expand...



More whining

Why don't you do something about it.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.
Click to expand...


The longer you wait, the harder that door is going to hit you in the ass.

Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The longer you wait, the harder that door is going to hit you in the ass.
> 
> Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today
Click to expand...

Make it here, spend it elsewhere.  Don't you know how the rich play the game?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton would have received about 1/3 less of the EV.
> 
> * President  *
> *Candidate* *Party* *Votes* *Pct.* *E.V.*
> 
> Clinton Hillary Clinton  Democrat Dem. 8,753,788 61.5% 55
> 
> Trump Donald J. Trump  Republican Rep. 4,483,810 31.5% —
> 
> Johnson Gary Johnson  Libertarian Lib. 478,500 3.4% —
> 
> Stein Jill Stein  Green Green 278,657 2.0% —
> 
> Others Others  Independent Ind. 177,028 1.2% —
> 
> La Riva Gloria La Riva  Peace and Freedom P.F. 66,101 0.5% —
> 
> Others Others  243,129 1.7% —
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
Click to expand...


We are a republic, not a democracy. All you can do is moan, whine and bitch about being the victim because of other states. You are just like other left wing nuts, you poor, poor, babies. Always the victim because of others.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The longer you wait, the harder that door is going to hit you in the ass.
> 
> Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it here, spend it elsewhere.  Don't you know how the rich play the game?
Click to expand...


Ohhh goodie! Another 1%er wanna be!


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won the popular vote.  Had all EC votes been awarded that way she would have won.  We call such a thing Math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a republic, not a democracy. All you can do is moan, whine and bitch about being the victim because of other states. You are just like other left wing nuts, you poor, poor, babies. Always the victim because of others.
Click to expand...

We are a constitutional democratic republic.  We are supposed to vote for who we want to represent us but there's just one problem in that for the highest office in the land Americans have no vote at all.  Hardly a democratic republic when the majority doesn't get a say now is it?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The longer you wait, the harder that door is going to hit you in the ass.
> 
> Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it here, spend it elsewhere.  Don't you know how the rich play the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhh goodie! Another 1%er wanna be!
Click to expand...

That's this whole nation but, never mind.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a republic, not a democracy. All you can do is moan, whine and bitch about being the victim because of other states. You are just like other left wing nuts, you poor, poor, babies. Always the victim because of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a constitutional democratic republic.  We are supposed to vote for who we want to represent us but there's just one problem in that for the highest office in the land Americans have no vote at all.  Hardly a democratic republic when the majority doesn't get a say now is it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
Click to expand...


That isn’t the way it works,changing one part of the Constitution doesn’t mean starting over. The crazy left pretending they know what is better for others. Lol!

Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn’t the way it works,changing one part of the Constitution doesn’t mean starting over. The crazy left pretending they know what is better for others. Lol!
> 
> Thanks for the laughs.
Click to expand...

In this case just starting over is the best thing to do.  They did.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> 
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.
Click to expand...


Little girl, I've seen people like you since the 60s...

Lotsa talk, little action.


----------



## Thinker101

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the spirit of the Constitution, the states have the right to determine how the EC votes are distributed.
> 
> So, would of, could of, should of, don’t count in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a republic, not a democracy. All you can do is moan, whine and bitch about being the victim because of other states. You are just like other left wing nuts, you poor, poor, babies. Always the victim because of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a constitutional democratic republic.  We are supposed to vote for who we want to represent us but there's just one problem in that for the highest office in the land Americans have no vote at all.  Hardly a democratic republic when the majority doesn't get a say now is it?
Click to expand...


Sorry, we're a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> 
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn’t the way it works,changing one part of the Constitution doesn’t mean starting over. The crazy left pretending they know what is better for others. Lol!
> 
> Thanks for the laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case just starting over is the best thing to do.  They did.
Click to expand...




KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> 
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn’t the way it works,changing one part of the Constitution doesn’t mean starting over. The crazy left pretending they know what is better for others. Lol!
> 
> Thanks for the laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case just starting over is the best thing to do.  They did.
Click to expand...


who did?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If thats the way you feel, I suggest you book passage to a more likeable foreign port.
> 
> This country is run by the Constitution, not your opinion
> 
> 
> 
> When the time is right, I will.  There are much better nations on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The longer you wait, the harder that door is going to hit you in the ass.
> 
> Don't put off til tomorrow what you can do today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it here, spend it elsewhere.  Don't you know how the rich play the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhh goodie! Another 1%er wanna be!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's this whole nation but, never mind.
Click to expand...


Not me, I like where I am at in my life. Money isn’t a motivator for me, my family and friends and being honest drive me. Sorry you see another world, that is on you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Little girl, I've seen people like you since the 60s...
> 
> Lotsa talk, little action.
Click to expand...


Kind of like the entertainers  who swore they would move out of the country if Bush won or Trump.  So far,  they are still here.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is our Constitution and it is the real world. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. In 2000 the Democrats lost the EC and whined, bitched and moaned. Sixteen years lapse and not one Democrat made a move to even attempt to change the Constitution.
> 
> Before the election, every presidential candidate knew what the rules were and how to win the general election, now you bitch and moan because you lost?
> 
> Why not get smart and learn the rules and then instead of being on a message board crying and bitching about the rule, get off your fat ass and work to change the Constitution. How stupid does one have to be? Do the math? You do the math and change the Constitution. If it is such a great idea, you should have no problem changing or you could wait until you lose the next election and cry bitch and moan some more.
> 
> 
> 
> Winning or losing has nothing at all to do with the Electoral College being undemocratic.  It should have been tossed long ago.  Just one big problem, the little useless kunt states like that flyover BS love it.  They love it not being one man one vote.  Until we toss the entire Constitution, and we will, this is going to be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More whining
> 
> Why don't you do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't like it.  It starts by throwing out the Constitution and starting over.  Long overdue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn’t the way it works,changing one part of the Constitution doesn’t mean starting over. The crazy left pretending they know what is better for others. Lol!
> 
> Thanks for the laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case just starting over is the best thing to do.  They did.
Click to expand...


Can you form a complete thought or exchange ideas or is that way too deep for you?


----------



## Hugo Furst

*Thread hasn't been on topic for a while now.

Moved to General Discussion*


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> In the real world the majority is supposed to get their guy into the highest office in the land.  That seems to have been forgotten here.



Yes the majority of geographic America not just LA and NY.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.


Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
Click to expand...


2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
Click to expand...

A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
Click to expand...

Got any more ridiculous talking points?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?



You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.


----------



## Leo123

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
Click to expand...


Talking points is about all she's got.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
Click to expand...

More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
Click to expand...

That's not a talking point, that's what he believes in.  Some votes are more equal than mine.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the majority of geographic America not LA and NY.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a talking point, that's what he believes in.  Some votes are more equal than mine.
Click to expand...


no, they aren't


that's why I called it a talking point.

You've been fed, and ate greedily at the trough, so much hogwash, I doubt you ever make it back to sanity.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
Click to expand...


Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Yep.  Do you understand that the people not getting a real vote on the highest office in the land is a problem? Not majority rule now is it?


----------



## Papageorgio

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a talking point, that's what he believes in.  Some votes are more equal than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they aren't
> 
> 
> that's why I called it a talking point.
> 
> You've been fed, and ate greedily at the trough, so much hogwash, I doubt you ever make it back to sanity.
Click to expand...


She doesn’t seem to understand how our government works or has worked for over 200 years. In this day and age ignorance seems to be the new fact.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Do you understand that the people not getting a real vote on the highest office in the land is a problem? Not majority rule now is it?
Click to expand...


No, you don’t understand as reflected by your answer. A Republic is not a majority rules type of government. Please take a civics lesson, you seem to be clueless as the chairman of the DNC.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Do you understand that the people not getting a real vote on the highest office in the land is a problem? Not majority rule now is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don’t understand as reflected by your answer. A Republic is not a majority rules type of government. Please take a civics lesson, you seem to be clueless as the chairman of the DNC.
Click to expand...

In this case, dummy, the majority doesn't even get to vote on the highest elected position in the land.  200 years or not, it's wrong.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dirt doesn't get a vote people do only, not here and not for the highest office in the land. Very undemocratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a talking point, that's what he believes in.  Some votes are more equal than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they aren't
> 
> 
> that's why I called it a talking point.
> 
> You've been fed, and ate greedily at the trough, so much hogwash, I doubt you ever make it back to sanity.
Click to expand...

Save your crap for the toilet, troll.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Save your crap for the toilet, troll.



Ahh name calling, the refuge for losers.  So what about it, are you going to vote to rape the woman?  After all it's 'Democratic.'


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
Click to expand...


OK so...you are for raping the woman... got it.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You side-stepped my example I showed you of 1 man one vote.....Did you not understand?  OK I'll explain again...5 men...each get a vote (1 man 1 vote) 1 woman (1 woman 1 vote) she loses and gets raped by the majority.  Don't you think the woman should have more voting power?  Please explain your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Do you understand that the people not getting a real vote on the highest office in the land is a problem? Not majority rule now is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don’t understand as reflected by your answer. A Republic is not a majority rules type of government. Please take a civics lesson, you seem to be clueless as the chairman of the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, dummy, the majority doesn't even get to vote on the highest elected position in the land.  200 years or not, it's wrong.
Click to expand...


Ahh but the majority of the country DID get to vote, you just don't like the vast majority of the geographic U.S.  Thankfully no one gives a shit what you think.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your crap for the toilet, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh name calling, the refuge for losers.  So what about it, are you going to vote to rape the woman?  After all it's 'Democratic.'
Click to expand...

One man one vote. That's democracy.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> More voting power? No. That's democracy for ya. One man one vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we are not a Democracy, never have been, we are a Republic. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Do you understand that the people not getting a real vote on the highest office in the land is a problem? Not majority rule now is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don’t understand as reflected by your answer. A Republic is not a majority rules type of government. Please take a civics lesson, you seem to be clueless as the chairman of the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, dummy, the majority doesn't even get to vote on the highest elected position in the land.  200 years or not, it's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh but the majority of the country DID get to vote, you just don't like the vast majority of the geographic U.S.  Thankfully no one gives a shit what you think.
Click to expand...

Dirt doesn't get a vote, people do but, not here for the highest office. That's very wrong.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your crap for the toilet, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh name calling, the refuge for losers.  So what about it, are you going to vote to rape the woman?  After all it's 'Democratic.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One man one vote. That's democracy.
Click to expand...


So you vote to rape the woman.  After all per YOUR definition, she is just 'dirt.'  To you that is democracy.  Can you see why some may think you're a bit unhinged?


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your crap for the toilet, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh name calling, the refuge for losers.  So what about it, are you going to vote to rape the woman?  After all it's 'Democratic.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One man one vote. That's democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you vote to rape the woman.  To you that is democracy.  Can you see why some may think you're a bit unhinged?
Click to expand...

Your example is that of a moron.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Your example is that of a moron.



Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
Click to expand...

The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.

And in what flyover shithole do you reside?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
Click to expand...


I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...


“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”


----------



## Markle

Looks like the new sock KatieK is still stringing some folks along.  How much does she get paid for each post?


----------



## Leo123

Markle said:


> Looks like the new sock KatieK is still stringing some folks along.  How much does she get paid for each post?



Yeah good point....We should ask her....I think I will...Hey KatieK....How much do you get per post?  Who funds that feckless garbage?  Come on now....Give it up....Wait, are you just a bot?  Come clean now.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Click to expand...

Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?

And I'll even help.  Four vote for pizza, two for tacos.  At which restaurant do you dine that night, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?


----------



## Papageorgio

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Click to expand...


She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?



I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
Click to expand...

When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.
Click to expand...

As expected,  a yes or no question that you cannot answer and why can't you, because it makes all your bullshit just that, bullshit.

Should 50.01% be denied their choice for President, yes or no?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.



The assumption that your question was 'direct' is a figment of your imagination.  What's scary is you don't even realize how programmed your responses have been.  Others say you are paid for your posts and some (like me) think you are a bot.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> And I'll even help.  Four vote for pizza, two for tacos.  At which restaurant do you dine that night, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
Click to expand...


That pesky


KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected,  a yes or no question that you cannot answer and why can't you, because it makes all your bullshit just that, bullshit.
> 
> Should 50.01% be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
Click to expand...


Electoral college, no.

The dems are running askew of laws past in which elections have been carried for over 200 years like theyre from somewhere else just yesterday.


----------



## KatieK

I'll make it as simple as possible here.  Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What are you having for dinner that night, tacos or pizza?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected,  a yes or no question that you cannot answer and why can't you, because it makes all your bullshit just that, bullshit.
> 
> Should 50.01% be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
Click to expand...


OK do you advocate democratic rape?  Yes or No.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption that your question was 'direct' is a figment of your imagination.  What's scary is you don't even realize how programmed your responses have been.  Others say you are paid for your posts and some (like me) think you are a bot.
Click to expand...

Spin won't help you.  You fucked up and now can't get out of the trap.  You had your chance to try and win, and you lost.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected,  a yes or no question that you cannot answer and why can't you, because it makes all your bullshit just that, bullshit.
> 
> Should 50.01% be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK do you advocate democratic rape?  Yes or No.
Click to expand...

The question has been asked.  If you can't answer then don't respond.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

That pesky rule of law.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> I'll make it as simple as possible here.  Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What are you having for dinner that night, tacos or pizza?



Two vote no rape, 3 vote rape....What is going to happen to the woman?  That's your democracy fer ya.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> And I'll even help.  Four vote for pizza, two for tacos.  At which restaurant do you dine that night, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That pesky
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a simple answer to a simple question.  Should the majority be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just disagree with your definition of majority.  You think that Democracy can rationalize the raping of the few and seem to have no trouble with that.  You consider minorities as 'dirt' (your own words).   You pompously regurgitate your communist/leftist talking points as if they were some kind of cult-religion.  You think people that own land are 'dirt' which is quite revolting.   People like you have no idea that there is a whole world outside your apparent closed myopic, hall of parrots and mirrors that is the MSM that you so worship.  Thank God and the Founders for the EC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected,  a yes or no question that you cannot answer and why can't you, because it makes all your bullshit just that, bullshit.
> 
> Should 50.01% be denied their choice for President, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electoral college, no.
> 
> The dems are running askew of laws past in which elections have been carried for over 200 years like theyre from somewhere else just yesterday.
Click to expand...

The Electoral College is not the American people.  It's undemocratic.  In a democratic republic that's the same as saying two want tacos and three want pizza so we are having - tacos.  Wrong on all levels at all times.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> That pesky rule of law.


The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.

Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Dr Grump

easyt65 said:


> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.



Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it as simple as possible here.  Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What are you having for dinner that night, tacos or pizza?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two vote no rape, 3 vote rape....What is going to happen to the woman?  That's your democracy fer ya.
Click to expand...

I'll make it as simple as possible here. Two vote tacos, three vote pizza. What are you having for dinner that night, tacos or pizza?

Reach into your pants, find your balls, and learn to be a man for once.  Answer the question even though it totally fucks you. Pizza or tacos?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> The Electoral College is not the American people.  It's undemocratic.  In a democratic republic that's the same as saying two want tacos and three want pizza so we are having - tacos.  Wrong on all levels at all times.



Why don't you spare us?  You have been spewing those talking points this whole thread.  Now tell us....Will you agree to raping the woman on a majority vote?  Yes or No...Like you said...simple question.  Why won't you answer?


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
Click to expand...


Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is that of a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
Click to expand...


What question did you ask me?


----------



## Leo123

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
Click to expand...


She probably asked you one of the loaded questions she is programmed to spew forth.  Notice she is all for Democracy but when challenged with a truly Democratic scenario (5 men and 1 woman) where the men all Democratically vote to rape the woman suddenly she changes the subject, moves the goal posts, etc.  We may really be seeing a bot here.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Electoral College is not the American people.  It's undemocratic.  In a democratic republic that's the same as saying two want tacos and three want pizza so we are having - tacos.  Wrong on all levels at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you spare us?  You have been spewing those talking points this whole thread.  Now tell us....Will you agree to raping the woman on a majority vote?  Yes or No...Like you said...simple question.  Why won't you answer?
Click to expand...

You have never answered any of my questions.  And your example is that of a moron.  You are a child.  Move along.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> Why don't you spare us?  You have been spewing those talking points this whole thread.  Now tell us....Will you agree to raping the woman on a majority vote?  Yes or No...Like you said...simple question.  Why won't you answer?



Because it's a lame, dumbarse analogy that's why....


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It perfectly represents true democracy.  You would have to be a 'moron' not to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
Click to expand...

Here it is, two vote tacos and three pizza.  What's for dinner, tacos or pizza?


----------



## Papageorgio

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption that your question was 'direct' is a figment of your imagination.  What's scary is you don't even realize how programmed your responses have been.  Others say you are paid for your posts and some (like me) think you are a bot.
Click to expand...


That’s a good possibility. I think bots would have better answers.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
Click to expand...


Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...


You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The which one of us do we rape is not usually up for a vote but the president of the US is and yet the voters don't get a say.  That's not representative democracy.
> 
> And in what flyover shithole do you reside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, two vote tacos and three pizza.  What's for dinner, tacos or pizza?
Click to expand...


Here it is, 5 vote rape, 1 votes no rape.  What's for dessert?  Yep.....Woman.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an example that you cannot contradict with your moronic reasoning so you try to move the goalposts.   The truth is you CANNOT answer because you KNOW that a true Democracy would never work.  So did the Founders.  You are slowly exposing yourself as one with very limited knowledge.   I will not challenge your very questionable apparent mental capacity however I would direct you to a couple of quotes...
> 
> 
> “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
> 
> “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, two vote tacos and three pizza.  What's for dinner, tacos or pizza?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is, 5 vote rape, 1 votes no rape.  What's for dessert?  Yep.....Woman.
Click to expand...

So?  They each had a vote, didn't they?  And that is unlike our system where the American voter doesn't even get a vote for POTUS.


----------



## Leo123

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
Click to expand...


Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
Click to expand...

There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
Click to expand...

You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is either a plant on this board by the Republican Party to make the Democratic Party look stupid and ignorant or she really is stupid and ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, two vote tacos and three pizza.  What's for dinner, tacos or pizza?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is, 5 vote rape, 1 votes no rape.  What's for dessert?  Yep.....Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  They each had a vote, didn't they?  And that is unlike our system where the American voter doesn't even get a vote for POTUS.
Click to expand...


Exactly...If it were like our system, the woman would have been able to cast more votes than each individual man thereby leveling the playing field.  It's called morality.  Have you heard of it?   Hey, no one wants a girl to get raped......Or do you?


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't manage to answer simple and direct questions, who is the stupid one?  Think on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What question did you ask me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is, two vote tacos and three pizza.  What's for dinner, tacos or pizza?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is, 5 vote rape, 1 votes no rape.  What's for dessert?  Yep.....Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  They each had a vote, didn't they?  And that is unlike our system where the American voter doesn't even get a vote for POTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly...If it were like our system, the woman would have been able to cast more votes than each individual man thereby leveling the playing field.  It's called morality.  Have you heard of it?   Hey, no one wants a girl to get raped......Or do you?
Click to expand...

One man, one vote.  You don't get to be more than equal just because you have a vagina.  But one thing is abundantly clear, you are a giant pussy.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
Click to expand...


States are entities and States with lower population densities are not worth any less than those with high population densities.  It's called equal opportunity...You know....The phrase you lefties spew 24/7 however when it doesn't blow your way you scream like little stuck pigs.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States are entities and States with lower population densities are not worth any less than those with high population densities.  It's called equal opportunity...You know....The phrase you lefties spew 24/7 however when it doesn't blow your way you scream like little stuck pigs.
Click to expand...

The flyover isn't worth shit, and each acre of the US doesn't get a vote.  One man one vote, ditch digger.

And let's use your example, Five vote to rape and one doesn't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ... 
The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.


If you don't want to play then go away.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States are entities and States with lower population densities are not worth any less than those with high population densities.  It's called equal opportunity...You know....The phrase you lefties spew 24/7 however when it doesn't blow your way you scream like little stuck pigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flyover isn't worth shit, and each acre of the US doesn't get a vote.  One man one vote, ditch digger.
> 
> And let's use your example, Five vote to rape and one doesn't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
Click to expand...


In this country the acres get votes.

New girl.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.



What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can do that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
Click to expand...


Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
Click to expand...

Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?

Be a man and answer, for once.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
Click to expand...

I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> If you don't want to play then go away.



Why don't YOU go away?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
Click to expand...


5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU go away?
Click to expand...

Why don't you learn to be a man and answer questions honestly?


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
Click to expand...

Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?
Click to expand...


How youre arguing that doing away with it is democratic and taking yourself seriously is beyond us. You're not serious at all, go yell at an inanimate object. I'm certain youre hysterical right now.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU go away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you learn to be a man and answer questions honestly?
Click to expand...


Why don't you learn to be a woman and answer questions honestly.  Apparently you have no problem with rape.  As long as it's 'Democratic.'


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States are entities and States with lower population densities are not worth any less than those with high population densities.  It's called equal opportunity...You know....The phrase you lefties spew 24/7 however when it doesn't blow your way you scream like little stuck pigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flyover isn't worth shit, and each acre of the US doesn't get a vote.  One man one vote, ditch digger.
> 
> And let's use your example, Five vote to rape and one doesn't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this country the acres get votes.
> 
> New girl.
Click to expand...

No, they don't, and they shouldn't.  They are dirt, we are people.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

The majority does not 'rule' that is defined as a dictatorship of the majority.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

The bra has burned off of this topic.

cyas


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> No, they don't, and they shouldn't.  They are dirt, we are people.



You are a bot...you are not 'people' I am so sorry to tell you that.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How youre arguing that doing away with it is democratic and taking yourself seriously is beyond us. You're not serious at all, go yell at an inanimate object. I'm certain youre hysterical right now.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I am perfectly rational.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, and they shouldn't.  They are dirt, we are people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bot...you are not 'people' I am so sorry to tell you that.
Click to expand...

And you are not a man, and I'm not sorry to tell you that.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU go away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you learn to be a man and answer questions honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you learn to be a woman and answer questions honestly.  Apparently you have no problem with rape.  As long as it's 'Democratic.'
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.  A true moron.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.



Then rationalize for me and everyone else here the 'Democratic' rape of an innocent woman.  Good luck.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> And you are not a man, and I'm not sorry to tell you that.



OH...nasty...nasty....


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationalize the 'Democratic' rape of an innocent woman.  Good luck.
Click to expand...

Even using your example you can't answer a question like a man.  So typical or rightwingers.

Five say rape, one says don't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?


----------



## Papageorgio

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
Click to expand...


Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> You're an idiot.  A true moron.



I accept your surrender.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
Click to expand...

No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five say rape, one says don't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me Einstein.  This is YOUR world.
Click to expand...


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  A true moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...

If only you were a man, but no.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationalize the 'Democratic' rape of an innocent woman.  Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even using your example you can't answer a question like a man.  So typical or rightwingers.
> 
> Five say rape, one says don't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell me Einstein.
Click to expand...

I already have.  The majority rules.  One man one vote.  See that, an answer.  That's what adults do.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> I already have.  The majority rules.  One man one vote.  See that, an answer.  That's what adults do.



So 'adults' vote to rape certain individuals in your estimable opinion.  Really?  And you say that's what adults do?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> If only you were a man, but no.



If only you were a woman, but no.


----------



## KatieK

Five say kill the baby, one says don't.  The baby dies.
Five say pizza, one says tacos.  Pizza is for dinner.
Five say kill Fred, Fred says no.  Fred gets shot in the head.  That is majority rule.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  The majority rules.  One man one vote.  See that, an answer.  That's what adults do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 'adults' vote to rape certain individuals in your estimable opinion.  Really?  And you say that's what adults do?
Click to expand...

Adults answer questions honestly even when they know they're fucked.  Little boys, like you, run away like you do.

Good night, infant.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
Click to expand...


It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. 

If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important. 

There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Adults answer questions honestly even when they know they're fucked.  Little boys, like you, run away like you do.



So you must not be an adult because you refuse to answer why a girl should get out voted and 'fucked' by 5 guys in their little 'Democratic' society.  Do you agree the innocent maiden should be defiled by 5 stout men because it's 'Democratic'.....True Democracy at work there.  Huh?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
Click to expand...


If you don’t like the system, then go away.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
Click to expand...

Let me help.  The class is 22 kids.  12 vote for Bob and 10 for Sally.  Who is class president, Bob or Sally?


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
Click to expand...

No, you fix the fucking broken system.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pesky rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
Click to expand...


I'm refusing to believe this lady thinks she has us strung on a true democracy pitfall argument.


----------



## Leo123

Papageorgio said:


> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.



She'll just ignore you and spout the same gibberish about what she has personally defined as a 'majority.'  I think she's a bot more and more.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adults answer questions honestly even when they know they're fucked.  Little boys, like you, run away like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you must not be an adult because you refuse to answer why a girl should get out voted and 'fucked' by 5 guys in their little 'Democratic' society.  Do you agree the innocent maiden should be defiled by 5 stout men because it's 'Democratic'.....True Democracy at work there.  Huh?
Click to expand...

I already said, infant, that if the vote is five to rape and one not to then rape is what happens.  The majority rules.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm refusing to believe this lady thinks she has us strung on a true democracy pitfall argument.
Click to expand...

Three vote pizza and two tacos, what's for dinner?


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> No, you fix the fucking broken system.



If it ain't broke don't fix it.   Commie/lefties are always looking for ways to break the system so they can get their socialist tentacles into our free society.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She'll just ignore you and spout the same gibberish about what she has personally defined as a 'majority.'  I think she's a bot more and more.
Click to expand...

The majority is 50.01%, little boy.


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ain't broke don't fix it.   Commie/lefties are always looking for ways to break the system so they can get their socialist tentacles into our free society.
Click to expand...

The system is broken.  The majority didn't win.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> [
> 
> Three vote pizza and two tacos, what's for dinner?


5 vote rape 1 votes no rape....What's for dessert?  You wanna keep going?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
Click to expand...


You eat pizza because before you voted you decided the majority would win. Our country is a republic, so your question about would apply in a national election because the individual states have a say.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> The system is broken.  The majority didn't win.



The system is not broken, geographic American won.  Dry your panties.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat pizza because before you voted you decided the majority would win. Our country is a republic, so your question about would apply in a national election because the individual states have a say.
Click to expand...

Be a man and answer.  And yes, I know it  fucks you into the ground.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

histrionics


----------



## KatieK

Leo123 said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system is broken.  The majority didn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system is not broken, geographic American won.  Dry your panties.
Click to expand...

I'm done with you, my little man. My patience for your dishonesty is pegged.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> Be an man and answer.  And yes, I know it  fucks you into the ground.



Be 'an' woman and answer.  Fuck her into the ground?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?
Click to expand...


We don’t want a democracy, the Constitution protects state and more importantly individual rights. The right to practice our religion of choice, the right to have free speech, the right to assemble, the right of a free press and the list goes on and on.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> I'm done with you, my little man.



You been done for a while.   Stick a fork in yourself.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don’t want a democracy, the Constitution protects state and more importantly individual rights. The right to practice our religion of choice, the right to have free speech, the right to assemble, the right of a free press and the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

It doesn't protect the right to get who you voted for for the highest office in the land.  Pretty fucking useless then.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
Click to expand...


No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Mob rule is the will of the majority.  The majority rules when it comes to electing representatives.  Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Should the majority get their choice for POTUS, yes or no?  Just yes or no.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationalize the 'Democratic' rape of an innocent woman.  Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even using your example you can't answer a question like a man.  So typical or rightwingers.
> 
> Five say rape, one says don't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
Click to expand...


In a democracy the woman gets raped, in a republic, the woman is protected. Get it?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
Click to expand...


When? Where? How?


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationalize the 'Democratic' rape of an innocent woman.  Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even using your example you can't answer a question like a man.  So typical or rightwingers.
> 
> Five say rape, one says don't.  Does the majority rule, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a democracy the woman gets raped, in a republic, the woman is protected. Get it?
Click to expand...

I got it decades ago.  And the republic part changes nothing, it's still majority rule.  The courts are what protects the minority, not the elected representatives who are supposed to be elected by, the majority.


----------



## BETH-MIDAN

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> 
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mob rule is the will of the majority.  The majority rules when it comes to electing representatives.  Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Should the majority get their choice for POTUS, yes or no?  Just yes or no.
Click to expand...


Oh, what is free will but the typical nature of the ballot, woe.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When? Where? How?
Click to expand...

Answer the yes/no question and I'll tell you.


----------



## KatieK

BETH-MIDAN said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mob rule is the will of the majority.  The majority rules when it comes to electing representatives.  Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Should the majority get their choice for POTUS, yes or no?  Just yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, what is free will but the typical nature of the ballot, woe.
Click to expand...

Yes, or no?  Be a man, for those who can't be.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky law is completely invalid in a democratic republic.  Besides that, no problem.
> 
> Will of the people?  You loved that when it was banning gay marriage just not when it elected Hillary Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me help.  The class is 22 kids.  12 vote for Bob and 10 for Sally.  Who is class president, Bob or Sally?
Click to expand...


It depends how you set up your system and what system you use. If it is a democracy Bob wins.

If you lived in Cuba in the 90’s, 12 people voted for Bob, 10 voted for Sally, who is the president of Cuba? Castro, because that is their system.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
Click to expand...


Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have democracy without law. Please, these total/true democracy problems are from middle and high school. Discuss it wisely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing 1 State to dictate to the rest of the geographic United Sates is also illegal...per the EC.  I gave the rape example because I discerned I was dealing with middle to high school mentalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't allowing one state, you are allowing one man one vote, which fucks you good so you don't want any part of it.  You'd rather have an undemocratic system than let the people get their way.  Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me help.  The class is 22 kids.  12 vote for Bob and 10 for Sally.  Who is class president, Bob or Sally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends how you set up your system and what system you use. If it is a democracy Bob wins.
> 
> If you lived in Cuba in the 90’s, 12 people voted for Bob, 10 voted for Sally, who is the president of Cuba? Castro, because that is their system.
Click to expand...

Gee, almost an answer.  That's correct, Bob got the most votes so, Bob wins.    See, that wasn't so tough after all now was it?


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.
Click to expand...

We will.  Not to worry.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat pizza because before you voted you decided the majority would win. Our country is a republic, so your question about would apply in a national election because the individual states have a say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a man and answer.  And yes, I know it  fucks you into the ground.
Click to expand...


I answered your question, you just don’t like the answer. You are a left wing nut, you hate not getting your way.


----------



## KatieK

It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no discussion when the other side refuses to answer a question honestly because if they did, they fail completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You eat pizza because before you voted you decided the majority would win. Our country is a republic, so your question about would apply in a national election because the individual states have a say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be a man and answer.  And yes, I know it  fucks you into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question, you just don’t like the answer. You are a left wing nut, you hate not getting your way.
Click to expand...

Your answer means that Trump should not be POTUS, and we all know that.  It's time to ditch the undemocratic Electoral College.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid premise.  Your questions were not honest in the first place and I already explained that to you.  You just keep regurgitating the same effluent....I can to that too....Why would you agree to a Democratic vote to allow the rape of a woman?  You have not answered that yet.  You have already 'failed completely.'
> 
> 
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mob rule is the will of the majority.  The majority rules when it comes to electing representatives.  Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Should the majority get their choice for POTUS, yes or no?  Just yes or no.
Click to expand...


I don’t want mob rule, I want everyone’s rights protected. I want our freedoms protected.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two vote tacos, three vote pizza.  What do you drive to, Pizza Hut or Taco Bell?
> 
> Be a man and answer, for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 men 1 woman...what's for dessert?  Be a woman and answer for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spin won't help you, little boy.  I have already answered what you cannot.  That majority rules.  One man one vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don’t, not in this country, we are a Republic set up to protect the minorities, mob rule is not the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mob rule is the will of the majority.  The majority rules when it comes to electing representatives.  Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Should the majority get their choice for POTUS, yes or no?  Just yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t want mob rule, I want everyone’s rights protected. I want our freedoms protected.
Click to expand...

How about the freedom to actually get who you voted for when they got the most votes?

My rights were not protected.  See the problem?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When? Where? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the yes/no question and I'll tell you.
Click to expand...


I’ve answered tons of your silly questions. You are a broken record and you have no point to your conversation.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When? Where? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the yes/no question and I'll tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ve answered tons of your silly questions. You are a broken record and you have no point to your conversation.
Click to expand...

You did answer one question, finally.  Good on you for being something like a man.  A nice change here.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will.  Not to worry.
Click to expand...


Good fix it and quit crying and being stupid.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.



No, they shouldn’t.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will.  Not to worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fix it and quit crying and being stupid.
Click to expand...

And you felt the need to repeat what you have said a dozen times already why exactly?  I told you no one is crying, we are fixing it.


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
Click to expand...

The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.

Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will.  Not to worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fix it and quit crying and being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you felt the need to repeat what you have said a dozen times already why exactly?  I told you no one is crying, we are fixing it.
Click to expand...


Sure you  will, you still have said how, but it’s okay, you are an angry left wing nut.


----------



## Papageorgio

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
Click to expand...


The rules of the election of the President are outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot nullify the Constitution.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 cities don't get to decide just because they have a higher population density.  The definition of a true democracy.  1 woman/5 men.  The men all vote to rape the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> A shame you don't approve of one man one vote.  You want yours to count twice, three times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more ridiculous talking points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not a talking point, that's what he believes in.  Some votes are more equal than mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they aren't
> 
> 
> that's why I called it a talking point.
> 
> You've been fed, and ate greedily at the trough, so much hogwash, I doubt you ever make it back to sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your crap for the toilet, troll.
Click to expand...


I did


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you're the one that can't deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I deal with it fine but it needs to be tossed, like the Constitution itself. It is, by definition, undemocratic.  Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How youre arguing that doing away with it is democratic and taking yourself seriously is beyond us. You're not serious at all, go yell at an inanimate object. I'm certain youre hysterical right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I am perfectly rational.
Click to expand...


not even close to it


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated "the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution" during a Tuesday night speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
Click to expand...


NOt likely


----------



## easyt65

For now the new DNC chairman just proved he is both stupid and a liar.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
Click to expand...


system isn't broken


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to fix it. If you get the law changed, then I’m good with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will.  Not to worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fix it and quit crying and being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you felt the need to repeat what you have said a dozen times already why exactly?  I told you no one is crying, we are fixing it.
Click to expand...




KatieK said:


> I told you no one is crying, we are fixing it



you're crying

you've been crying all thru this thread.

you're fixing it?

How?

By whining on  a message board?

all you're doing is filling your diapers.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
Click to expand...



when did the Supreme court say that?


It's nonsense


----------



## Slyhunter

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
Click to expand...

It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.


----------



## KatieK

Slyhunter said:


> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?


Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BETH-MIDAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is burning down like an open mic with Eminem ...
> The structure of democracy is not entirely based on one man one vote. State entities (x50) have rights and so do the entities of the individual districts therein. And as far as 1 man one vote you're definitely for tossing it up anyways, ms katiek. Meanwhile, you're running around knowing what it is in some fantasy that youre leading the entire forum in their own arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to play then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t like the system, then go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you fix the fucking broken system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> system isn't broken
Click to expand...

It very much is and many people like it that way because their vote counts more than others which is very, very wrong.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
Click to expand...



hypothetical...

a lie with no background

If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not, but it's a dumbarse idea that has gone past its use-by date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOt likely
Click to expand...

Just a matter of time.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical...
> 
> a lie with no background
> 
> If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement
Click to expand...

Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
Click to expand...



yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..

and all have a say in his election


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical...
> 
> a lie with no background
> 
> If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?
Click to expand...


They don't count more than others.

who fed you that crap?


----------



## KatieK

Papageorgio said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me when people who pretend to be adults can't answer yes and no questions. They can spin all day long but can never put their asses on the line.  So typical of Americans.  But hey, we have one answer to should the person with the most votes win?  It's even correct.  Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules of the election of the President are outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot nullify the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask it to I asked would that be fair or unfair?  22 kids in the class, Bob gets 12 votes and Susan gets 10.  The teacher makes Susan not Bob class president.  Fair or unfair?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..
> 
> and all have a say in his election
Click to expand...

No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah says Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOt likely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a matter of time.
Click to expand...



neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.

I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one with the most votes shouldn't win?  Not what you said.
> 
> Let's play a game with that though.  The Electoral College votes for 200 for A and 101 for B but the Supreme Court says no, the votes of those who voted for B count as two votes each so B wins.  Fair or unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical...
> 
> a lie with no background
> 
> If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't count more than others.
> 
> who fed you that crap?
Click to expand...

They absolutely do.  Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken.  Iowa gets two votes just like Texas?   Idiotic.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..
> 
> and all have a say in his election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.
Click to expand...




KatieK said:


> in a representative democracy that is.



if you want that to happen, you need to move to one


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, maybe. That aside, it is still a dumbarse idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOt likely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.
> 
> I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.
Click to expand...

You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner.  The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..
> 
> and all have a say in his election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you want that to happen, you need to move to one
Click to expand...

Plans are always in the works, TY.  You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did the Supreme court say that?
> 
> 
> It's nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical...
> 
> a lie with no background
> 
> If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't count more than others.
> 
> who fed you that crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They absolutely do.  Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken.  Iowa gets two votes just like Texas?   Idiotic.
Click to expand...


the senate?

Do you know ANYTHING about the government?

The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.

the House, based on population, to make it representative

Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOt likely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.
> 
> I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner.  The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.
Click to expand...


You're hilarious


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hypothetical.  It requires thinking.  Go back to sleep, Moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical...
> 
> a lie with no background
> 
> If you had thought, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child, since you want to play, do you have a fair election if some votes count more than others, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't count more than others.
> 
> who fed you that crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They absolutely do.  Just the Senate itself shows the system is broken.  Iowa gets two votes just like Texas?   Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the senate?
> 
> Do you know ANYTHING about the government?
> 
> The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.
> 
> the House, based on population, to make it representative
> 
> Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about
Click to expand...

There is nothing fair about a tiny state having two votes and a massive state also having two votes.  As with the Electoral College that is undemocratic.


----------



## Hugo Furst

KatieK said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..
> 
> and all have a say in his election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you want that to happen, you need to move to one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plans are always in the works, TY.  You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?
Click to expand...


if you're sending large checks to speed it along,

someone is conning a very stupid person


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is crying about it.  And it's going to be changed like the rest of the Constitution.  Soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt likely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> neither of us will be alive when/if that happens.
> 
> I doubt it will happen in my great great grandchildrens time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can doubt whatever you like the US cannot withstand several events that are just around the corner.  The control, what there is of it, will go local when the anarchy starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're hilarious
Click to expand...

And you're an idiot so what?


----------



## KatieK

WillHaftawaite said:


> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, president of the large states, small states, medium states..
> 
> and all have a say in his election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the states don't elect the president, the people do, in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KatieK said:
> 
> 
> 
> in a representative democracy that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you want that to happen, you need to move to one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plans are always in the works, TY.  You could send large checks, that would speed up the process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you're sending large checks to speed it along,
> 
> someone is conning a very stupid person
Click to expand...

No, idiot, you send me large checks and I'll leave sooner.


----------



## Hugo Furst

You're unofficially on ignore...

come back when you get a clue about the government


----------



## Dr Grump

Papageorgio said:


> Then work to change it instead of crying about it. Nobody gave a damn about the EC until the left lost. No it’s a dumb idea. You people play victim really well. Every candidate knew the rules, it’s so sad that the left can’t accept why they lost.



I'm not American. And if you can be bothered (not that you should be), go back over the years on here (and yes, even when Obama won) and you'll see I've been saying the same thing.


----------



## Dr Grump

Papageorgio said:


> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.



It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.


----------



## Dr Grump

WillHaftawaite said:


> Do you know ANYTHING about the government?
> 
> The senate, 2 members from each state, to make it fair.
> 
> the House, based on population, to make it representative
> 
> Go back to mid-school, learn what you're talking about



But it's not representative. I'm not doing the maths yet again on this board. Take out the two Senate EC votes for each state and you'll that an EC vote in say NH or Alaska is worth more than one in Texas or California. IOW, those people born in the more populated states are disenfranchised.


----------



## Leo123

KatieK said:


> But it's not representative. I'm not doing the maths yet again on this board. Take out the two Senate EC votes for each state and you'll that an EC vote in say NH or Alaska is worth more than one in Texas or California. IOW, those people born in the more populated states are disenfranchised.



It IS representative.  When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot.  Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors.  It is 100% representative.  We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> It IS representative.  When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot.  Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors.  It is 100% representative.  We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.



How can it be representative when an Alaskan vote is worth more than that of a Californian or Texan. And yes, I know you wing nuts really really hate it, but your are a democracy and a republic. You're using the definition of democracy as it relates to one person one vote and first past the post etc. The term has a lot wider meaning.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS representative.  When you vote it is the ELECTORS that you vote for even though the candidate's name is on the ballot.  Your chosen candidate REPRESENTS electors.  It is 100% representative.  We DO NOT have a true Democracy...never did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be representative when an Alaskan vote is worth more than that of a Californian or Texan. And yes, I know you wing nuts really really hate it, but your are a democracy and a republic. You're using the definition of democracy as it relates to one person one vote and first past the post etc. The term has a lot wider meaning.
Click to expand...


One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States.  Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision.  The electoral college is another issue. 

*"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."

In Defense of the Electoral College
*
Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York?  That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States.  Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision.  The electoral college is another issue.
> 
> *"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."
> 
> In Defense of the Electoral College
> *
> Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York?  That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.



That's not even my point. An election should represent all the people, no matter where they are from. So in other words, just because you happen to live in a more populous state your vote should mean less to say, somebody living in Delaware? You guys talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of the minority?


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States.  Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision.  The electoral college is another issue.
> 
> *"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."
> 
> In Defense of the Electoral College
> *
> Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York?  That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even my point. An election should represent all the people, no matter where they are from. So in other words, just because you happen to live in a more populous state your vote should mean less to say, somebody living in Delaware? You guys talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of the minority?
Click to expand...


In order to represent 'all people' all regions need to have equal representation not just the few most populous states.   OK then, why should a minority of populous States have tyrannical rule over less populous States?  Maybe you don't realize that LA and NY are mostly Democrat.  Why should one party have such an advantage?  Shouldn't a President represent ALL the United States and not just two cities in two States?  Did you read the excerpt I gave you?  Do you understand 'transregional appeal.?'  That is what Trump had and remember he went to areas that were thought he could never win and campaigned there.  Hillary avoided areas where she was either not popular or thought she would win hands down.  That is why she lost.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> In order to represent 'all people' all regions need to have equal representation not just the few most populous states.   OK then, why should a minority of populous States have tyrannical rule over less populous States?  Maybe you don't realize that LA and NY are mostly Democrat.  Why should one party have such an advantage?  Shouldn't a President represent ALL the United States and not just two cities in two States?  Did you read the excerpt I gave you?  Do you understand 'transregional appeal.?'  That is what Trump had and remember he went to areas that were thought he could never win and campaigned there.  Hillary avoided areas where she was either not popular or thought she would win hands down.  That is why she lost.



I think the EC should be proportional to the number of people in each state. Currently it is not. Texas is mostly GoP. And? That is not the point. Isn't it interesting that you talk about trans regional appeal as opposed to a party's policies, which is what really matters. Now it's about the win, not what is best for the people. California and NY combined will never win the presidency anyway. Why should a culmination of little states whose EC votes are worth more have more of a say?

As I said, the US system sucks. One of the worst in the western world IMO. Not only because of the EC, but because it is a two-party state. I won't even go into the point there is a total lack of compromise by either party.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> I think the EC should be proportional to the number of people in each state. Currently it is not. Texas is mostly GoP. And? That is not the point. Isn't it interesting that you talk about trans regional appeal as opposed to a party's policies, which is what really matters. Now it's about the win, not what is best for the people. California and NY combined will never win the presidency anyway. Why should a culmination of little states whose EC votes are worth more have more of a say?



The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density.  I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform.  In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes.  The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States.  I thought we already went over that.



> As I said, the US system sucks. One of the worst in the western world IMO. Not only because of the EC, but because it is a two-party state. I won't even go into the point there is a total lack of compromise by either party.



Yeah I know your opinion so what?  You have not proven your point.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density.  I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform.  In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes.  The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States.  I thought we already went over that.
> 
> Yeah I know your opinion so what?  You have not proven your point.



I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.

Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people. 

And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density.  I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform.  In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes.  The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States.  I thought we already went over that.
> 
> Yeah I know your opinion so what?  You have not proven your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.
> 
> Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people.
> 
> And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?
Click to expand...


I already explained it to you but you don't seem to comprehend.  A straight popular vote would disenfranchise States with lower population density and the thrust (according to the founders) is to equalize U.S. regions because you cannot discount Geography.  You seem to be hung up on population density and that is not what was envisioned by the Founders.  You don't seem to see the other side.  A straight popular vote would be unfair in areas of lower population density and who is to say that less populated areas are worth less to the Republic?  Why should they always be ruled by distant, large metropolitan areas?   

You do know that in the U.S. the popular vote usually agrees with the EC don't you?  It is pretty rare that the EC wins but, when it does, it is definitely a message to Washington that it's time to pull back from the precipice.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density.  I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform.  In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes.  The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States.  I thought we already went over that.
> 
> Yeah I know your opinion so what?  You have not proven your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.
> 
> Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people.
> 
> And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already explained it to you but you don't seem to comprehend.  A straight popular vote would disenfranchise States with lower population density and the thrust (according to the founders) is to equalize U.S. regions because you cannot discount Geography.  You seem to be hung up on population density and that is not what was envisioned by the Founders.  You don't seem to see the other side.  A straight popular vote would be unfair in areas of lower population density and who is to say that less populated areas are worth less to the Republic?  Why should they always be ruled by distant, large metropolitan areas?
> 
> You do know that in the U.S. the popular vote usually agrees with the EC don't you?  It is pretty rare that the EC wins but, when it does, it is definitely a message to Washington that it's time to pull back from the precipice.
Click to expand...


Um, I'm not asking for a straight popular vote. Where have I said that. I'm asking for proportional representation of sorts. Not a straight vote. In fact, I hate FPP systems....

You seem to be obsessed that the smaller states have more of a say than their bigger state counterparts. Why should they? Have an equal say, sure. But more? No. Not fair. Not right in any way, shape or form. You are basically penalising somebody for where they live which is a shitty thing to do and not morally right. Why should a farmer in Nebraska's vote be more important than an accountant in Los Angeles? That is elitist. Something the framers (even though they only allowed certain men to vote and some were slave owners) claimed was the very thing they were fighting Great Britain over.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Um, I'm not asking for a straight popular vote. Where have I said that. I'm asking for proportional representation of sorts. Not a straight vote. In fact, I hate FPP systems....
> 
> You seem to be obsessed that the smaller states have more of a say than their bigger state counterparts. Why should they? Have an equal say, sure. But more? No. Not fair. Not right in any way, shape or form. You are basically penalising somebody for where they live which is a shitty thing to do and not morally right. Why should a farmer in Nebraska's vote be more important than an accountant in Los Angeles? That is elitist. Something the framers (even though they only allowed certain men to vote and some were slave owners) claimed was the very thing they were fighting Great Britain over.



OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist.  Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas?  If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America.  And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage.  Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote.  When it doesn't there is a good reason.  Like I already told you.

OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC?  Maybe I'm not understanding your position.  I appreciate our chat BTW.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist.  Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas?  If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America.  And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage.  Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote.  When it doesn't there is a good reason.  Like I already told you.
> 
> OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC?  Maybe I'm not understanding your position.  I appreciate our chat BTW.



I disagree. I don't hink it does exist if one state has an advantage over another. And I wouldn't have thought geography matters. Taking it to the nth degree. One state has 10 people another has 10 million. The people with 10 people has, say 3 EC votes. The one with 10 million has 15. The EC vote in the 10-person state has much more of an advantage and is much better represented. I'm not too concerned about the popular vote. Where I live we use MMP so popular vote is part of it but not the be-all and end-all. I just think the EC opens up to being inherently unfair to one party or another when it could easily be fixed by offering proportional representation, or even splitting the votes within a state. Currently if you are a Repub in Cali or NY or a Dem living in Texas your vote is pointless.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Tom Perez is a retard.


----------



## Slyhunter

KatieK said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist.  Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas?  If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America.  And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage.  Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote.  When it doesn't there is a good reason.  Like I already told you.
> 
> OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC?  Maybe I'm not understanding your position.  I appreciate our chat BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't hink it does exist if one state has an advantage over another. And I wouldn't have thought geography matters. Taking it to the nth degree. One state has 10 people another has 10 million. The people with 10 people has, say 3 EC votes. The one with 10 million has 15. The EC vote in the 10-person state has much more of an advantage and is much better represented. I'm not too concerned about the popular vote. Where I live we use MMP so popular vote is part of it but not the be-all and end-all. I just think the EC opens up to being inherently unfair to one party or another when it could easily be fixed by offering proportional representation, or even splitting the votes within a state. Currently if you are a Repub in Cali or NY or a Dem living in Texas your vote is pointless.
Click to expand...


Why don't you think geography matters when clearly the Founders did?  Of course it matters!!  That's where our natural resources, our farm land, etc. exist.  I have heard others call it 'dirt' or 'just trees' which is, IMO, a tragically myopic and insulting view of a large segment of the country.  Your assumption that the EC is unfair flies in the face of the reality that in most Presidential elections, the EC and popular vote agree.  But I get it....Trump won and a lot of ignorant folks just don't understand how he got elected. After all, it 'should have been Hillary' they say.  Because she won the 'popular' vote.  Now we have people like you wanting to parse the EC.  Just give it up already...Trump won fair and square.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> Why don't you think geography matters when clearly the Founders did?  Of course it matters!!  That's where our natural resources, our farm land, etc. exist.  I have heard others call it 'dirt' or 'just trees' which is, IMO, a tragically myopic and insulting view of a large segment of the country.  Your assumption that the EC is unfair flies in the face of the reality that in most Presidential elections, the EC and popular vote agree.  But I get it....Trump won and a lot of ignorant folks just don't understand how he got elected. After all, it 'should have been Hillary' they say.  Because she won the 'popular' vote.  Now we have people like you wanting to parse the EC.  Just give it up already...Trump won fair and square.



Right. So just because you live in country areas your vote should be worth more? That is what you are essentially saying. How am I insulting people by demanding that their vote be the equal of all others.

And no, I was a critic of the EC long before Trump got the vote. I've been on this board for over 10 years. Have had this argument when Bush jnr was in power and Obama. 

It is very easy to see how he got elected. Doesn't make the system any better.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> Right. So just because you live in country areas your vote should be worth more?



It's not a matter of more it's a matter of geographic equality.  You never answered me....I will ask you again...Why should LA and NY represent geographic U.S.?  Just because they have a higher population density doesn't mean they are any more valuable than arable land.



> That is what you are essentially saying. How am I insulting people by demanding that their vote be the equal of all others.



You discount the contribution of more rural land.  All you care about is population density.  America is about more than that as I already explained to you while you totally ignored what I said to beat the same old dead horse.



> And no, I was a critic of the EC long before Trump got the vote. I've been on this board for over 10 years. Have had this argument when Bush jnr was in power and Obama.
> 
> It is very easy to see how he got elected. Doesn't make the system any better.



Well good for you, you're still wrong.  I don't care how long you've been here


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> [
> 
> It's not a matter of more it's a matter of geographic equality.  You never answered me....I will ask you again...Why should LA and NY represent geographic U.S.?  Just because they have a higher population density doesn't mean they are any more valuable than arable land.
> 
> You discount the contribution of more rural land.  All you care about is population density.  America is about more than that as I already explained to you while you totally ignored what I said to beat the same old dead horse.
> 
> Well good for you, you're still wrong.  I don't care how long you've been here



We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.

Wrong about what?


----------



## Papageorgio

Dr Grump said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.
Click to expand...


A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.

I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.


----------



## Leo123

Dr Grump said:


> We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.
> 
> Wrong about what?



Rural and city votes would not be of equal value in a straight popular vote.  City votes would be intrinsically be worth more.  That is why we have the EC.


----------



## Dr Grump

Leo123 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.
> 
> Wrong about what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rural and city votes would not be of equal value in a straight popular vote.  City votes would be intrinsically be worth more.  That is why we have the EC.
Click to expand...


I get that. That doesn't address my point.


----------



## Dr Grump

Papageorgio said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.
> 
> I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.
Click to expand...


Does it though? At the end of the day, with regard to the EC, only about three or four states really matter. Penn, Ohio, Florida....


----------



## Papageorgio

Dr Grump said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.
> 
> There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.
> 
> I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it though? At the end of the day, with regard to the EC, only about three or four states really matter. Penn, Ohio, Florida....
Click to expand...


It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Grump

Papageorgio said:


> It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So less than a third of the states matter. And I would argue out of the 16 you have named Nevada, Maine, Utah, New Hampshire and Arizona are irrelevant. So about 1/5 matter.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Papageorgio

Dr Grump said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So less than a third of the states matter. And I would argue out of the 16 you have named Nevada, Maine, Utah, New Hampshire and Arizona are irrelevant. So about 1/5 matter.
Click to expand...


If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.


----------



## Dr Grump

Papageorgio said:


> If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.



I'm not even talking popular vote.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dr Grump said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even talking popular vote.
Click to expand...


Ok.


----------



## Pogo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.
> 
> We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we absolutely do not.
> 
> If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace.  If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump.  No state does that.  And none would; it would be stupid.
> 
> Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count.  Not by a proxy that does wha they want.  There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state.  One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  must be confused.  When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote.  I'll discontinue using  that term.
> 
> Yes, we have a  popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency.  Those elections produce a lower percentage  of voters than the  presidential election.  So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout.  And as I  stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC.  So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.
Click to expand...


I don't automatically agree that governor/senator etc races produce a lower turnout than POTUS elections (but show your figures) --- but in any case electing a head of state, in any country anywhere, is going to be the most vital and the most voter-interested, far more than electing a local sheriff or judge.  So comparing _that_ turnout --- the head of state national election --- would be the apples to apples comparison between countries.  And in that, the US ranks abysmally low compared to the rest of the world.  In 2016 turnout was 55%, which is fairly typical for us.  And that's abysmal.

And my assertion here is that the EC/WTA system is a prime reason for that.  One, because it renders irrelevant the votes of everybody who lives in a "locked-red" or "locked-blue" state, and two, because it renders equally irrelevant the votes of the minority in every other state that was considered at all 'close'.  That's a net sum of the vast majority of Presidential votes counting for absolutely nothing whatsoever.

And a second prime reason is the existence of the Democratic/Republican Duopoly, where only two realistic choices exist, and again the EC/WTA system ensures that that Duopoly stays that way and that no third alternative may ever exist.  The DP, the RP and the EC/WTA all work together to keep us in that trap with no way out.

It's not so much the EC that is the culprit here --- it's the WTA that the vast majority of states have robotically fallen into, for no other reason than that "everybody else is doing it".  That snowballed into the morass we're in now.  And as long as we do nothing to eliminate that system ----- we're trapped in it.  Forever.  And as the old saw says, if you keep on doing things the same way, you'll keep on getting the same results.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately).  THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary would have had fewer in Ca, NY,  Trump fewer in Tx, Florida.
> 
> Odds are, Trump would still have had the majority
Click to expand...


Actually some wonks have already figured that out.

This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used.  In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.

But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually _count_ for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout.  So it's really impossible to answer.


----------



## Pogo

Leo123 said:


> [QUOTE="Pogo, post: 18464000, member: 41527"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> "States deciding the Presidency" is exactly what the EC system already does. And the WTA approach, which 48 of the 50 states use and the other two use WTA-lite --- completely fucks that up.  James Madison could see that.  That's why he wanted to abolish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it this way, if Hillary lost LA Trump would have won the popular vote.
Click to expand...


And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now.  I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.

What's your point?


----------



## Leo123

Pogo said:


> And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now.  I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.
> 
> What's your point?



Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition.  Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.


----------



## Leo123

Pogo said:


> Actually some wonks have already figured that out.
> 
> This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used.  In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.
> 
> But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually _count_ for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout.  So it's really impossible to answer.



Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.


----------



## Pogo

Leo123 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now.  I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition.  Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.
Click to expand...


And the point sails way over yet another head... 

--- you can't just invent planets where things that happened, didn't happen.  Reality is what it is, like it or lump it.


----------



## Pogo

Leo123 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually some wonks have already figured that out.
> 
> This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used.  In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.
> 
> But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually _count_ for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout.  So it's really impossible to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.
Click to expand...


And the whooooosh just keeps on comin'.

The post had zero to do with "who lost or won".  It's about _how the system works_.
Go learn how to read.


----------



## Leo123

Pogo said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually some wonks have already figured that out.
> 
> This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used.  In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.
> 
> But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually _count_ for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout.  So it's really impossible to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the whooooosh just keeps on comin'.
> 
> The post had zero to do with "who lost or won".  It's about _how the system works_.
> Go learn how to read.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You're melting...admit it.


----------



## Leo123

Pogo said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now.  I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition.  Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the point sails way over yet another head...
> 
> --- you can't just invent planets where things that happened, didn't happen.  Reality is what it is, like it or lump it.
Click to expand...


The point was never made you idiot.


----------



## GreenBean

Grampa Murked U said:


> They truely live in the land of fairy tales & pixie dust.


Bring back the Monkey !


----------

