Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[dannyboys]

Warren is bursting with what we might call charisma in male candidates: She has the folksy demeanor of Biden, the ferocious conviction of Sanders, the deep intelligence of fellow law professor Obama. But EW isn't a man & so those traits are framed as liabilities, not strengths

EW is also a chronic poser and a proven liar!
She has as much chance of getting the nomination as you have spotting one of BONOBO's white unicorns grazing in your mommy's backyard.

 

[Pogo]

Red areas of California are few and inbetween.

There are more "red" voters in Cali than people in Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota combined.

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit. You seem to be terrified of actually analyzing how the system works and why it doesn't.

 

[Pogo]

Yes ! Right now the red areas of Cali never have a say in the prez election .

Red areas of California are few and inbetween.

There are more "red" voters in Cali than people in Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota combined.

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

I guarantee you if WTA didn't exist this whole EC question would be arcane minutiae that only political technonerds would be even bringing up, and it would matter a whole lot less if at all.

But there's no practical way to make that happen because the individual states each chose to go down that road. I don't see a way to convince any one (two, three etc) to abandon it unless all the other states do also.

That's the "mob" irony of all this --- the EC-clingers keep chanting that Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet it was literally mob mentality that brought us to where we are. And again, James Madison wanted to abolish it; he could see where this was heading.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are more "red" voters in Cali than people in Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota combined.

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

 

[Faun]

Please put me on ignore and you won't have to be embarrassed every time you show your ass!

I suspect half the people here already have you on ignore.

Now, STFU, and go away. Anyone with a third grade math education knows you fucked up. Suck it up and move on, dumbass!

You would obviously know since you have about a 3rd grade math education. Shall I prove it? You keep SAYING I fucked up but I'm still waiting for you to SHOW US WHERE. Show us ONE OTHER PERSON who agrees with you!

WHERE? PROVE IT, TOUGH GUY. Talk is cheap, especially coming out of your mouth.

Or can't you even prove a 3rd grade math error wrong?

Rockhead Tory, tackling all of the truly tough and important issues of the day.

Please just go away! You are making start to feel sorry for your pathetic little brain.

Jeez, enough already.

You both fucked up. He fucked up saying New York voted blue since 1992; when they've actually voted blue since 1988 -- but you fucked up thinking he said 1992 is when they last elected a Republican; when he said 1988 was when they last elected a Republican.

At least he was man enough to own his mistake, whereas you are digging in with your stilettos, hoping to bore him into dropping out of this pissing contest between the two of you. You really are stupid enough to fool yourself into believing that would mean you won.

 

[Synthaholic]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

Elect Elizabeth Warren to own the Cons.

 

[Pogo]

If the Electoral College is abandoned there will be no need to visit, campaign in, listen to, pay any attention to those smaller states.

So much doublethink. Where does one even start.

Obviously nobody bothers NOW with those Wyomings and Vermonts and Rhode Islands and Utahs, specifically because of the WTA system. Both the red and blue candies know full well that those states are going red/blue/blue/red, therefore there's no reason for EITHER of them to bother, and they don't. One candy knows he'll never get that state and the other knows he has it in the bag.

As for your obsession with "Hillary" she made the fatal ass-umption that she had Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/whatever in the bag, again on that same WTA principle. You get 'em all, or you lose 'em all.

On the other hand if a vote counted proportionally as they in fact happened, would reflect how the state's voters actually voted. My state's 15 EVs for example might have been allocated 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton (or 7/6/2). Nobody here got 50% of the PV, yet Rump got 100% of the EV. Again that's even more out of proportion than the three-fifths compromise of the slavery daze.

So don't be trawling around here trying to sell this snake oil of easily debunked Doublethinkian crapola. It's easily seen through as preposterous hallucination.

Of course, nothing in the Constitution says we have to have a vote at all. It just says the several states shall designate electors, however they choose to do so. But the reality is they all hold elections as if they're data inputs, and then they immediately turn and toss half (or more) of those votes directly into the crapper.

"EQUAL REPRESENTATION" my ASS.

You're right, Hillary completely ignored several states who, through the Electoral College, were guaranteed equal representation / importance in a US Presidential Election. Hillary learned the hard way how important they turned out to be. Their voices / votes were not only heard and mattered, they chocked the world and changed the results of a predicted 'landslide' election. THAT is why it is important that EVERY state's, every region of the country's, voices / votes mattering be protected.

The only reason why Dems are calling for the Electoral College to be eliminated now is because Hillary lost.

IF HILLARY HAD WON WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION / WOULD NOT BE HEARING A DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDED TO BE ABANDONED AT ALL RIGHT NOW!

Can’t help but notice there weren’t so many leftists whining and crying BEFORE the election, back when all of them were predicting a Hillary landslide. It’s hilarious how they all ragged on Trump for stating he might not accept the election results, and now suddenly they all became history professors overnight and want to shred the Constitution to get Crooked Hillary back in.

AGAIN --- you "can't help noticing" simply because you CHOOSE NOT TO notice. This question has been going on for two hundred years. Your sitting on a message board claiming ignorance of all that prior discussion just because you find it inconvenient to acknowledge, means absolute squatso. That's yet another bullshit way of running away from the question just like Ray does above. Y'all are just too skeered to address it. What this indicates is that you know you have no genuine argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[hunarcy]

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

Illegals can't vote.

And Heroin is illegal...but people still buy it and illegals still seem to influence our elections.

No, they don't. You have zero proof of that.

Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections | Federation for American Immigration Reform

 

[hunarcy]

If the State declares they're going to select electors based on the national popular vote, but the state's voters had voted for the other candidate, how are they not losing their voting rights and being disenfranchised?

As far as federal laws go, the Voting Rights Bill of 1965 was passed to eliminate discriminatory provisions that kept blacks from voting. Constitutional amendments have dealt with extending the voting franchise to specific groups. In 19th amendment gave the franchise to women, the 26th does not permit states to deny the vote because of age to anyone that's at least 18.

And none of that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[hunarcy]

And Heroin is illegal...but people still buy it and illegals still seem to influence our elections.

No, they don't. You have zero proof of that.

Yep, and you have zero proof they don't....except all the politicians that pander to them. Dumbass.

lol, just like you have zero proof you're not a Nazi.

You want me to prove the absence of something. Genius.

And you have zero proof you're a dumbass...oh, wait you do, just read some of your posts.

You're right, I do have zero proof that I'm a dumbass.

Da fuck?

Sadly, there is quite a bit of evidence for that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Can anyone for see a national recount? That would be fun!

 

[Pogo]

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

 

[Pogo]

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Your problem is you don't want to look behind those skirts to see what's hiding there. You want to ignore the history of Democrats and just assume they are on the level this one time. Like they are so concerned about making the system better and not just better for themselves.

Right. Democrats care so much about the country, that's why they are making this an issue now.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

 

[Pogo]

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Your problem is you don't want to look behind those skirts to see what's hiding there. You want to ignore the history of Democrats and just assume they are on the level this one time. Like they are so concerned about making the system better and not just better for themselves.

Right. Democrats care so much about the country, that's why they are making this an issue now.

The more I point out your deflection, the deeper you dig into it.

Once AGAIN this question has nothing to do with "Democrats" beyond that they may (or may not) have a candidate in a particular race. And once again it's not "Democrats" bringing up the flaws --- James Madison was not a "Democrat". Nor is Newt Gingrich. That has *ZERO* to do with how the system works, which question you're avoiding at all costs because you clearly can't handle it.

 

[Pogo]

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Your problem is you don't want to look behind those skirts to see what's hiding there. You want to ignore the history of Democrats and just assume they are on the level this one time. Like they are so concerned about making the system better and not just better for themselves.

Right. Democrats care so much about the country, that's why they are making this an issue now.

The more I point out your deflection, the deeper you dig into it.

Once AGAIN this question has nothing to do with "Democrats" beyond that they may (or may not) have a candidate in a particular race. And once again it's not "Democrats" bringing up the flaws --- James Madison was not a "Democrat". Nor is Newt Gingrich. That has *ZERO* to do with how the system works, which question you're avoiding at all costs because you clearly can't handle it.

Huh....Dems are indeed the folks talking about doing away with it. Do you get out much?

 

[Ambivalent1]

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.