Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
***chuckles***We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
They can, but it would require an actual law to pass to invalidate the current law, or in some cases the actual Constitution of the State.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
Lol, what if Hillary had done it?If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report
A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congresswww.yahoo.com
That's how you post a link...
And what if Hillary had done it? Democrats would have had no problem with it whatsoever. I don't like Trump any more than I like Biden, but do everyone a favor and don't pretend Democrats are any better that Trumplicans.
The changes your talking about are to make it easier to vote under the present circumstances. What tRump is doing is depriving people of their fundamental right to vote.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
No they illegally harvest ballots, Illegal vote for the dead and illegally vote in 2 states. They also try their damnedest to make it so illegals can vote.Lol, what if Hillary had done it?If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report
A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress
That's how you post a link...
And what if Hillary had done it? Democrats would have had no problem with it whatsoever. I don't like Trump any more than I like Biden, but do everyone a favor and don't pretend Democrats are any better that Trumplicans.
A completely bullshit question. No Democratic candidate would ever stopped to that kind of cheating.
Fake news. In person vote fraud is virtually non existent, mail in fraud is even less. The real fraud is republicans suppressing or intimidating voters.No they illegally harvest ballots, Illegal vote for the dead and illegally vote in 2 states. They also try their damnedest to make it so illegals can vote.Lol, what if Hillary had done it?If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report
A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress
That's how you post a link...
And what if Hillary had done it? Democrats would have had no problem with it whatsoever. I don't like Trump any more than I like Biden, but do everyone a favor and don't pretend Democrats are any better that Trumplicans.
A completely bullshit question. No Democratic candidate would ever stopped to that kind of cheating.
Once again..My 'scenario' is one man/one vote and get rid of the Electoral College. It will sink in for you eventually.We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
Fake news. In person vote fraud is virtually non existent, mail in fraud is even less. The real fraud is republicans suppressing or intimidating voters.No they illegally harvest ballots, Illegal vote for the dead and illegally vote in 2 states. They also try their damnedest to make it so illegals can vote.Lol, what if Hillary had done it?If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report
A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress
That's how you post a link...
And what if Hillary had done it? Democrats would have had no problem with it whatsoever. I don't like Trump any more than I like Biden, but do everyone a favor and don't pretend Democrats are any better that Trumplicans.
A completely bullshit question. No Democratic candidate would ever stopped to that kind of cheating.
That's horseshit Dim propaganda. The changes are being made to facilitate voter fraud.The changes your talking about are to make it easier to vote under the present circumstances. What tRump is doing is depriving people of their fundamental right to vote.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
***chuckles***We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
And what State would be...the state of confusion? If a swing state went popular for Trump..and the state declared for Biden--and changed the outcome of the election..you'd go to your grave whining!
When your opponent starts fixating on technicalities to win a contest..you know you are winning..just sayin'
We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
Once again..My 'scenario' is one man/one vote and get rid of the Electoral College. It will sink in for you eventually.We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
Dims have been gloating about Nixon for 50 years, and you're telling Republicans that the should ignore Hillary's crimes? It isn't just Hillary, it's most of the Obama administration. They are all implicated, and they are all going down.Hillary is at Trump's feet. she's DONE! the enemy is Biden, so focus on him!
Genuinely incredible to watch Trumpworld keep talking about Clinton as Biden’s favorable numbers rise to the mid-50s.
If the State's law allowed that outcome, I wouldn't like it, but I'd accept it.***chuckles***We're also fine with a Democrat-controlled state giving all its electoral votes to Biden even if he loses the popular vote...if allowed by law.Jeezus!..AGAIN. we get it..we get it..your fine with a republican controlled state deciding to give Trump all it's electoral votes even if he loses the popular vote in that state 'because the law says so'. Why do you keep repeating yourself.Again Trump's base is fine with a state like Arizona telling it's voters..so you voted for Biden, well were going to give Trump all our electoral votes anyway...have a nice dayIt's the year the Bush vs. Gore ruling gave back the states right to use their electors anyway they wanted. 'States' being the operative word for governor or legislature. The fear is that say..Biden wins Arizona by 100,000 votes but the states electors are instructed to give all their votes to Trump anyway.You do realize 2000 is a year right?..as in 'Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.We are not talking about 'most states' we are talking six. Trump's people think their legislatures/governor can tell the electors to vote for Trump regardless of the outcome of the popular vote in that state, as per the 2000 SCOTUS ruling in Bush vs. Gore."Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."...I think that means a republican controlled state can ignore the popular vote in that state if it goes Biden's way. Might as well not even have Trump and Biden on those state ballots.If Trump gets his way it will not matter who wins the popular vote in six key states, they will be obligated to have its electors vote for Trump...https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html
That is TOTALLY LEGAL under The United States Constitution.
Well, that'll teach you to try to think when you're obviously unequipped for it.
Most states have state laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote for that state. And the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that electors do have to follow those laws if their state has them.
2000?
You're an idiot.
Yes
Nothing to do with what you're talking about though.
Well, that's certainly the fear your masters have ordered you to cringe and rant about, anyway. It's far more likely that Trump's campaign is looking at what to do in the event of unclear results that drag on too long. Did you really expect that you leftists were going to be able to brazenly upend the entire election process in full view of everyone, and no one would consider strategies to counteract you?
It really bugs you when people choose to have laws that operate differently from the way you want them to, doesn't it? Arizona could have passed a law binding its electors to the state's popular vote, the same way those other 32 states did. We chose not to. Who the fuck are you to come along now and remake our choice for us to suit your sensibilities?
Again, you're fine with telling the voters of Arizona, "So you set these laws, but I know better than you, so we're going to do what I want instead of what you decided."
Also, may I point out that your hypocritical ass is supporting a party that has been clamoring for a while now for the "Popular Vote Compact", where the voters of Arizona would have their electors decided by other states regardless of Arizona's popular vote, so spare me your lies about how you're concerned about the will of Arizonans. The truth is that you want a world where your candidate wins no matter what, and people have no choice about the matter. Don't try to piss down my leg and then swear that it's raining, and don't try to tell me that your desperate fight for tyranny is anything but the evil that it is.
You can't say you're okay with both scenarios. You only want the one
So shaddap, boy..
And what State would be...the state of confusion? If a swing state went popular for Trump..and the state declared for Biden--and changed the outcome of the election..you'd go to your grave whining!
When your opponent starts fixating on technicalities to win a contest..you know you are winning..just sayin'
"...their fundamental right to vote Democrat."The changes your talking about are to make it easier to vote under the present circumstances. What tRump is doing is depriving people of their fundamental right to vote.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
Republicans can't vote by mail?"...their fundamental right to vote Democrat."The changes your talking about are to make it easier to vote under the present circumstances. What tRump is doing is depriving people of their fundamental right to vote.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
That's what you mean. You hate it that people decide for themselves who they want to vote for. You want one-party rule.
Democrats loath democracy.
I didn't say they couldn't.Republicans can't vote by mail?"...their fundamental right to vote Democrat."The changes your talking about are to make it easier to vote under the present circumstances. What tRump is doing is depriving people of their fundamental right to vote.The governors in a number of states have unilaterally changed their voting procedures, so why can't the legislature change the manner of choosing electors?The Constitution allows it BUT a State can not go against it's current laws on how to decide electors. It is a BOGUS STORY. Those States would need to change State law first.
That's what you mean. You hate it that people decide for themselves who they want to vote for. You want one-party rule.
Democrats loath democracy.
Why not?
