Republicans, do you really want Trump to win the ‘popular vote’?

[Ken Mac]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

 

[BrokeLoser]

Both narcissistic ends of the spectrum want to cram their agendas down our throats whether the majority wants it or not.

They have convinced themselves that they, and they alone, know what's best for us. They're very smart, y'know.

Just another of the many examples of how nutters on both ends can be so comically similar in their behaviors.
.

Conversely, you and your ilk keep telling us that ShaQuita from the swamps of Louisiana with a filth grade education and zero knowledge of politics and barely legal, barely English speaking Guadalupe “know what’s best for us” and should decide our elections. What gives?

I did?

Where?
.

Nowhere. You are just a placeholder to yell at for dip shit wingers.

What fascinates me is that they might very well believe the stuff they make up.

Like Trump - just spray it out, and talk yourself into believing it simultaneously.

Nutters: Always interesting to observe.
.

Tumblin Tumbleweed
Sorry to interrupt you fellas exchanging handys...BUT uh, have you two expressed your discontent for wetbacks stealing their offspring a citizenship and then voting for nothing but free shit and FEELZ in our elections?
How about the filthy, twisted fuckers like JoeB131 and rightwinger whom fight to drag welfare queens out of their huts in the swamps to voting booths with no identification...link us to where you condemned such measures....We'll be waiting patiently...thanks in advance.

 

[justoffal]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Furthermore, state electoral votes are ALREADY unrelated to the popular vote. Nobody in my state cracked a majority of the state's vote in 2016. That's also true of the infamous trio of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (all three). Also Florida, Virginia, Colorado, AridZona and even Utah. Yet ALL of those states that could not select a candidate on the PV, sent 100% of their electoral vote to the same candidate, who in every case could not crack 50% of the state's vote.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump is not a warm man, but he's smart, he's strong...not just strong, did i mention he's smart?

 

[Dick Foster]

It would be nice, just to give the Progs one less talking point to harp about when and if they lose in 2020.

Aside from that point, Trump is going to win more votes than any other candidate in US history.

I am thinking it could go north of 70 million votes for him.

Don't get cocky, thats what did Dems in in 2016.

Being cocky and looking at the clear evidence and facts at hand are entirely different things.
I've predicted many things in my time but they weren't really predictions because I knew from first hand knowledge and plain old common sense that what was sure to happen would indeed happen. BTW Both times they called me crazy.
One was GPS before it happened but I was was involved so I knew where it was going and what was sure to happen. The electronics had to develop some but any fool could see that coming. That was back in the early 1970s.
Another was smartphones and cameras but having been involved in that too it wasn't so much of a prediction as it was laying out a time line. This in the late 1990s and around 2000.
I was often asked why anyone would want a camera in their cellphone. I'd answer with do you have a cell phone and where is it. The answer was always right here of course. Then I'd ask if they had DSC and they'd usually answer at home in a drawer.
Then I'd just look at them and shrug as they answered their own question.
The rest is history now.

This election is going to be a Trump landslide. It's in the tea leaves. Mark my words.

And BTW the democratic party will become nothing but a marginalized shadow of its former self in the process. Unless you're blind you can see it happening right before your very eyes.

 

[Mac1958]

Both narcissistic ends of the spectrum want to cram their agendas down our throats whether the majority wants it or not.

They have convinced themselves that they, and they alone, know what's best for us. They're very smart, y'know.

Just another of the many examples of how nutters on both ends can be so comically similar in their behaviors.
.

Conversely, you and your ilk keep telling us that ShaQuita from the swamps of Louisiana with a filth grade education and zero knowledge of politics and barely legal, barely English speaking Guadalupe “know what’s best for us” and should decide our elections. What gives?

I did?

Where?
.

Nowhere. You are just a placeholder to yell at for dip shit wingers.

What fascinates me is that they might very well believe the stuff they make up.

Like Trump - just spray it out, and talk yourself into believing it simultaneously.

Nutters: Always interesting to observe.
.

Tumblin Tumbleweed
Sorry to interrupt you fellas exchanging handys...BUT uh, have you two expressed your discontent for wetbacks stealing their offspring a citizenship and then voting for nothing but free shit and FEELZ in our elections?
How about the filthy, twisted fuckers like JoeB131 and rightwinger whom fight to drag welfare queens out of their huts in the swamps to voting booths with no identification...link us to where you condemned such measures....We'll be waiting patiently...thanks in advance.

I don't use hateful & ugly terms like you do, but I'm against illegal immigration, and I have a completely original and specific plan to deal with it in a humane way that helps America.

The fact that I'm not consumed by paranoia, bigotry and misery like you doesn't mean I agree with the Regressive Left.

But go ahead and make shit up about me. I'll watch.

 

[justoffal]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side changed some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

 

[Dick Foster]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, Trump is a shoo in to win both the electoral and the popular vote. Look I was a former life long Democrat for 35+ years. Then Obama, who I voted for declared me a bitter clinger and Hillary declared me deplorable. My party didn't want me. I voted for Trump and will again. I predict there are still enough sane Democrats who realize what a danger a President Sanders would be who will switch like I did last time. When you ignore the media's bull shit narrative and look deeper and see the good that Trump is doing, Trump stands a good chance of winning. Now if only the constituents of Dem house members will realize that their representatives did jack shit for them in the last three years while attempting to pull of a coup, maybe they will boot them out of office like happened when Reid ran an obstructionist house and it cost them the leadership. Then Trump would only have the media to contend with.

Very well said.
Maybe you've helped some remove their blinders and pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Both narcissistic ends of the spectrum want to cram their agendas down our throats whether the majority wants it or not.

They have convinced themselves that they, and they alone, know what's best for us. They're very smart, y'know.

Just another of the many examples of how nutters on both ends can be so comically similar in their behaviors.
.

Conversely, you and your ilk keep telling us that ShaQuita from the swamps of Louisiana with a filth grade education and zero knowledge of politics and barely legal, barely English speaking Guadalupe “know what’s best for us” and should decide our elections. What gives?

I did?

Where?
.

Nowhere. You are just a placeholder to yell at for dip shit wingers.

What fascinates me is that they might very well believe the stuff they make up.

Like Trump - just spray it out, and talk yourself into believing it simultaneously.

Nutters: Always interesting to observe.
.

Tumblin Tumbleweed
Sorry to interrupt you fellas exchanging handys...BUT uh, have you two expressed your discontent for wetbacks stealing their offspring a citizenship and then voting for nothing but free shit and FEELZ in our elections?
How about the filthy, twisted fuckers like JoeB131 and rightwinger whom fight to drag welfare queens out of their huts in the swamps to voting booths with no identification...link us to where you condemned such measures....We'll be waiting patiently...thanks in advance.

I oppose illegal immigration and I believe in the constitution. I think every US citizen should never have their right to vote infringed upon, even skeevy racist scumbag cowards like yourself.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

It would be nice, just to give the Progs one less talking point to harp about when and if they lose in 2020.

Wouldn’t he have to promise to steal more from America’s best citizens, promise to give more to Americas beaners and bottom feeders, open our southern border and pretend men in dresses are cool and normal?
Wouldn’t Progs simply find something else to bitch and whine about?
WillHaftawaite

Clearly, you are actually a Democrat troll. We're voting for Trump.

 

[jc456]

broke, what the fk is this about?

 

[alang1216]

George W. Bush did it in 2004, so why can't Trump do it in 2020?

The demographics of this nation has changed dramatically since 2004 as have the wants, needs and desires of the citizenry.
Face it, this nation will continue to grow further apart...we are just too different.

Sorry but we've ALWAYS been different. In fact I'd say the opposite is true, we're more alike today than any time in our history.

That's just plain retarded silly talk..ignorance and denial. Stop pretending and pay attention please.

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The demographics of this nation has changed dramatically since 2004 as have the wants, needs and desires of the citizenry.
Face it, this nation will continue to grow further apart...we are just too different.

Sorry but we've ALWAYS been different. In fact I'd say the opposite is true, we're more alike today than any time in our history.

That's just plain retarded silly talk..ignorance and denial. Stop pretending and pay attention please.

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

Well, he usually is, but I don't think he's completely incorrect either. He just talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't use hateful & ugly terms like you do, but I'm against illegal immigration, and I have a completely original and specific plan to deal with it in a humane way that helps America.

If you have posted this somewhere, I would be very interested in reading it Mac.

BTW, I think a number of people here know that you are not regressive, but for most people everything is binary in nature.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't use hateful & ugly terms like you do, but I'm against illegal immigration, and I have a completely original and specific plan to deal with it in a humane way that helps America.

If you have posted this somewhere, I would be very interested in reading it Mac.
BTW, I think a number of people here know that you are not regressive, but for most people everything is binary in nature.

Line 4 of my sig: Band Aids, Borders, Burritos & Bejing
.

 

[SmokeALib]

Trump is where he is to keep the commies at bay. I don't care how he wins. He will win. The televised presidential debates will be merrily for entertainment value.

 

[justoffal]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo