Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Papageorgio]

Republicans only seem able to win when they can manipulate the EC. The "will of the people" be damned
Oh..
Time for reform

How was the EC manipulated?

I don't expect a coherent answer.

I don't expect an answer.

I didn't expect one either, you give them tough questions and they run.

 

[Markle]

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.

I don't see that increasing the number of voters.

I know we (Florida) have early voting. There are a limited number of polls open about two weeks before the election. You can also go to city hall to cast your ballot. In addition, we have absentee ballots.

In my opinion...all that would happen with a holiday, aside from being incredibly expensive, would be people kicking back, holding a beer in the air and declare the brand of beer for which they are voting. Am I being a bit cynical?

Instead of a holiday, change the day of voting to Sunday.

 

[Markle]

Sorry dude. Not gonna happen. YOU don't get to pick who has a voice and who doesn't.

Remember that "taxation without representation" thing? If you aren't allowed to vote you have no representation.

Besides. YOU would fail MY test.

(my highlight above)

YES, if you do not pay income taxes, you do not vote in National elections! Great, sounds like a plan to me, we agree on something!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're "graciously" conceding that small states "might not want" to be helpless to the dictates of larger states, and then expect to pretend that larger states are similarly helpless to the whims of small states, simply because they're being required to compromise instead of just steamrolling along?

Awww, they don't like having to compromise. My heart bleeds. That's not even remotely the same as simply having no power at all so that we can dumb down our system to what looks "fair" to simpletons. Btw, you should know that I consider "fair" to be a nonsensical, meaningless kindergarten concept, so it's unlikely to convince me of anything except that you reason like a child.

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

Note I am not telling you how to talk or trying to control your behavior. Is there any possibility you can do the same? Or is the leftist judgemental control freak too strong in you?

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

Gosh, thanks for clarifying. I would never have known that discussing the Electoral College was about the Presidency if you hadn't told me, Captain Obvious.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

Ah, yes. More of your "I assumed everything was about population numbers, and I just KNOW that that is somehow holy and sacred, therefore you should accept that as fact, too."

::yawn::

NO state should carry extra weight.

See above.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

Alabama has 9 Electoral votes; NY has 29. Only in your deranged, "urban areas should rule all" mind does that qualify as Alabama having more influence than New York.

Why don't you just admit that you think Alabama should fuck off entirely and let New York decide everything for them?

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

Then they'd best be 63 million people all over the country, rather than in a handful of mega-cities.

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

See above.

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

Yes . . . if you're a fucking kindergartner deciding which kind of animal to get for class pet. If you're talking about the direction and future of an entire nation and the diverse populations therein, "might makes right, so shut up and get busy on our plantation" really isn't going to fly.

When I get a free moment, I'll explain the various places that you substituted emotion for reason and went totally off the rails. This is what skipping real education in favor of "what everyone knows" gets you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just pointing out some facts. Sorry if facts offend you.

YOU offend me Ray. Idiots offend me. Racists offend me.

So how do you feel about your idiot friend above, voting Ray?

Does he get a pass? He clearly doesn't know shit. Does he get a pass?

Everybody here should be allowed to vote. What you don't understand is my suggestion is that people that have absolutely no knowledge of politics and policies not be allowed to vote.....zero. It has nothing to do with race or partisanship. What I would like to see is better representatives and not people who go to the polls for shits and giggles.

Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?

"Let me ask: how did Alexandria Kelly Bundy make it to Congress--by a knowledgable electorate?"


How did trump?

And how could Roy Moore almost win a senate seat in Alabama?

a guy who actually states he wants to criminalize gays

You get that "knowledgeable" does not mean "agrees with anyname's positions", right?

Also, as much as I know you love your what-aboutism, and just can't resist the urge to cite all your personal boogeymen and how much you think they suck every time someone dares to criticize one of your darlings, you might want to rein in your kneejerks and realize 1) what Ray's point is, and 2) that IF you are correct, you're actually making his point for him.

Of course, you being correct is a big if.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.

I don't see that increasing the number of voters.

I know we (Florida) have early voting. There are a limited number of polls open about two weeks before the election. You can also go to city hall to cast your ballot. In addition, we have absentee ballots.

In my opinion...all that would happen with a holiday, aside from being incredibly expensive, would be people kicking back, holding a beer in the air and declare the brand of beer for which they are voting. Am I being a bit cynical?

Instead of a holiday, change the day of voting to Sunday.

Problematic in several ways. First of all, a lot of people are in church on Sundays, and are far less cooperative to missing church than missing work. Second, a goodly number of polling places are at churches, which would already be in use. Third, there would be the problem of paid employees of the election having to be paid overtime for working on a Sunday. Fourth, poorer voters often use public transportation, which is much less available and reliable on Sundays than on weekdays.

As for early voting making an Election Day holiday unnecessary, I don't think Bri is a big fan of early voting. I could be wrong.

 

[Markle]

Um, little refresher: After Bush92 came Bill Clinton... remember all that Monica Lewinsky stuff? Ken Starr ring any bells? Yeah, he did that. A Republican. Then went and got himself kicked off the Baylor University campus. And I'm no Democrat, Einstein. Point was the Republicans are clearly no better. Seems you simply react to things without actually reading them.

Keep in mind now that the Meuller investigation, after more than two years, there was no collusion. Period.

Those indicted, found guilty, or have pled guilty are about crimes occurring outside of the realm of President Donald Trump.

Whereas, with President Bill Clinton and Ken Star, it was a very, very different result. As you know well!

Allow me to "refresh" your memory.

William Jefferson Clinton, Former President of the United States and Democrat

Sexual Assault
Rape

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

Gennifer Flowers (Unknown settlement)

Paula Jones ($850,000 settlement)

Kathleen Willey (Unknown settlement)

Juanita Broaddrick (Unknown settlement)

Monica Lewinsky….(“I did not have sex with THAT woman”)

Perjury
Impeachment

Loss of Law License

$50,000 fine

Whitewater

Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker - fraud felony convictions - 3 counts (Tucker resigned facing impeachment)

Jim McDougal - fraud and conspiracy felony convictions - 18 counts

Susan McDougal - felony - 4 counts (pardoned during Clinton's last minute pardongate payoffs)

William J. Marks Sr - conspiracy

Stephen Smith - conspiracy

Larry Kuca - Fraud

Neal Ainley - 2 misdemeanors for embezzlement

David Hale - guilty plea - conspiracy

Chris Wade - felony

Whitewater real-estate investor John Haley - recent!

1998 on fraud Robert Palmer - felony for conspiracy Charles Matthews - guilty plea for bribery Eugene Fitzhugh -

Whitewater - bribery Webster Hubbell - #2 ranking Justice Dept. Official - felony for embezzlement and fraud

John Latham - CEO of Madison Bank - bank fraud Campaign

Finance: Johnny Chung - Clinton cronie - felony guilty plea - funneling money from China

Gene Lum - convicted - felony for money laundering for the DNC

Nora Lum - convicted - felony for money laundering for the DNC

Howard Glicken - guilty plea - 2 misdemeanors - funneling foreign donations

Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie - guilty plea - illegal Clinton campaign donations

John Huang - Clinton cronie - felony guilty plea - funneling money from China

Paula Jonesgate: William Jefferson Clinton - found guilty - civil contempt of court - lying under oath about material facts. The Office of the Independent

Council further presented Clinton with an agreement that had him disbarred from practicing law for 5 years and made him sign a statement admitting to his deception.

Post Administration

Sandy Bergergate Sandy Berger – Clinton National Security Adviser -- found guilty of stealing highly classified documents from the National Archive and destroying them.

 

[Markle]

Problematic in several ways. First of all, a lot of people are in church on Sundays, and are far less cooperative to missing church than missing work. Second, a goodly number of polling places are at churches, which would already be in use. Third, there would be the problem of paid employees of the election having to be paid overtime for working on a Sunday. Fourth, poorer voters often use public transportation, which is much less available and reliable on Sundays than on weekdays.

As for early voting making an Election Day holiday unnecessary, I don't think Bri is a big fan of early voting. I could be wrong.

All registered voters go to church every Sunday? Wow, who knew?

They also go to church all day? Even for LDS, (oops, corrected typo 'LSD'), they attend for 3-4 hours at most.

If Sunday was the election day, there would be far more places available for polling locations.

If Election Day was made a legal holiday, then all election employees would be entitled to overtime pay for working on a holiday.

Every election day, there are dozens of organizations offering free transportation.

Problems solved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Problematic in several ways. First of all, a lot of people are in church on Sundays, and are far less cooperative to missing church than missing work. Second, a goodly number of polling places are at churches, which would already be in use. Third, there would be the problem of paid employees of the election having to be paid overtime for working on a Sunday. Fourth, poorer voters often use public transportation, which is much less available and reliable on Sundays than on weekdays.

As for early voting making an Election Day holiday unnecessary, I don't think Bri is a big fan of early voting. I could be wrong.

All registered voters go to church every Sunday? Wow, who knew?

They also go to church all day? Even for LSD, they attend for 3-4 hours at most.

If Sunday was the election day, there would be far more places available for polling locations.

If Election Day was made a legal holiday, then all election employees would be entitled to overtime pay for working on a holiday.

Every election day, there are dozens of organizations offering free transportation.

Problems solved.

Yes, the phrase" a lot of people" definitely means "all registered voters" . . . if you're illiterate.

If you don't think a lot of people go to church most of the day on Sunday because "even LSD" (which I assume means LDS) only attend 3-4 hours at most, then you obviously need a wider-ranging experience of religious denominations, specifically Evangelical Protestants. My own church routinely runs until almost 1 pm, and then has an evening service beginning around 6, and any black Evangelical church you care to name thinks we're practically heathens for our "short" churchings.

Whether or not election employees would be entitled to overtime pay on they day their jobs is all about depends entirely on how things are set up and how their employment contracts are worded. But making that specific day a weekend day would be problematic to an extra degree.

Every election day, there are still shortages of transportation and people simply using the public transportation they're most familiar with.

I'm so glad that you can airily declare "problem solved" because it all seems good in your head. God forbid that you consider the possibility that elections were set on a weekday instead of a weekend after lengthy consideration of a variety of factors you have never had to consider, since unlike you, the people making that decision were actually responsible for something, not just armchair "geniuses" getting snotty because they got discussion and debate on their proposal, rather than instant acclaim for their "brilliance".

 

[bripat9643]

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.

I don't see that increasing the number of voters.

I know we (Florida) have early voting. There are a limited number of polls open about two weeks before the election. You can also go to city hall to cast your ballot. In addition, we have absentee ballots.

In my opinion...all that would happen with a holiday, aside from being incredibly expensive, would be people kicking back, holding a beer in the air and declare the brand of beer for which they are voting. Am I being a bit cynical?

Instead of a holiday, change the day of voting to Sunday.

That would also work.

 

[Markle]

You did not answered the question. Let's ask again...

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

You were responding to one of our favorite Trolls, Lesh but allow me.

LEGALLY, Senators represent the state which elected them.

In my opinion, Senators believe they represent Washington trying to bring along their state to agree to whatever they propose.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would return Senators to representing their STATE. IF that was the case, can anyone imagine that even 10% of the unfunded mandates would be passed by the Senate? Those expenses the House and Senate so freely pass on to the states today would be gone. In addition, Senators from fiscally responsible states would impose fiscal responsibility as one of their criteria to representing the state.

 

[Lesh]

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Do you even know what the word "election" means?

The Coup of 18 Brumaire
In November 1799, in an event known as the coup of 18 Brumaire, Napoleon was part of a group that successfully overthrew the French Directory.

The Directory was replaced with a three-member Consulate, and Napoleon became first consul, making him France’s leading political figure. In June 1800, at the Battle of Marengo, Napoleon’s forces defeated one of France’s perennial enemies, the Austrians, and drove them out of Italy. The victory helped cement Napoleon’s power as first consul. Additionally, with the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, the war-weary British agreed to peace with the French (although the peace would only last for a year).


Does that in any way look like an election?

And you vote?

Sheesh

 

[Markle]

Do you even know what the word "election" means?

The Coup of 18 Brumaire
In November 1799, in an event known as the coup of 18 Brumaire, Napoleon was part of a group that successfully overthrew the French Directory.

The Directory was replaced with a three-member Consulate, and Napoleon became first consul, making him France’s leading political figure. In June 1800, at the Battle of Marengo, Napoleon’s forces defeated one of France’s perennial enemies, the Austrians, and drove them out of Italy. The victory helped cement Napoleon’s power as first consul. Additionally, with the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, the war-weary British agreed to peace with the French (although the peace would only last for a year).


Does that in any way look like an election?

And you vote?

Sheesh

Since few, other than you, live in the 18th century, for your edification here is the definition of the word Election.

e·lec·tion
[əˈlekSH(ə)n]
NOUN
elections (plural noun)

1. a formal and organized choice by vote of a person for a political office or other position.
   "the 1860 presidential election" · "an election year"
   synonyms:
   ballot · vote · poll · referendum · plebiscite · general election · local election · popular vote· straw vote/poll · show of hands · voting (in) · choosing · picking · selection · choice · appointment
   antonyms:
   voting out
   • the action of electing or the fact of being elected.
     "his election to the House of Representatives" · "she ran for election in 2013"

ORIGIN
Middle English: via Old French from Latin electio(n-), from eligere ‘pick out’ ( see elect).

 

[Lesh]

I'm sure you think you have a point. If it's that Napoleon was elected...you're even dumber than I thought

 

[Ame®icano]

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

No one elected Napoleon. Hitler never got a majority...but YOU helped elect Trump.

So much for the intelligence argument.

Ray just took away your right to vote

Would you care to educate me as to how Napoleon became first consul and how he later was promoted to "consul for life." ???

He didn't just march in paris and scream "I EM DE EMPORAR! NEELUH BEFOR MEE!"

Do you even know what the word "election" means?

The Coup of 18 Brumaire
In November 1799, in an event known as the coup of 18 Brumaire, Napoleon was part of a group that successfully overthrew the French Directory.

The Directory was replaced with a three-member Consulate, and Napoleon became first consul, making him France’s leading political figure. In June 1800, at the Battle of Marengo, Napoleon’s forces defeated one of France’s perennial enemies, the Austrians, and drove them out of Italy. The victory helped cement Napoleon’s power as first consul. Additionally, with the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, the war-weary British agreed to peace with the French (although the peace would only last for a year).


Does that in any way look like an election?

And you vote?

Sheesh

Actually, Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was first elected President of France.

There were more than one Napoleon in French history. And you vote?

Sheesh

 

[Markle]

I'm sure you think you have a point. If it's that Napoleon was elected...you're even dumber than I thought

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Not really surprising. Leftists seem dependent to an alarming amount for their identity and self-esteem on the "moral superiority" they believe their political positions provide them. Under those circumstances, to admit that people just think their ideas and positions suck would be the same as admitting that people think THEY suck. They can't do that, so they have to make excuses why people "really love" them, and it was just somehow - probably unerhandedly - prevented from being obvious.