11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Stormy Daniels]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

The constitution says the several states shall choose their electors by whatever means their legislatures establish. Therefore, the electoral college is working exactly as planned.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Democrats lose one election because of the Electoral College, so like the mind-numbed robots they are, they wage war against the Electoral College system. It never occurs to them that it could easily have gone the other way.

States can decide how they allocate their votes

Than you wouldn't mind if Ohio and Florida pass the legislation to give all of their electoral votes to whomever California doesn’t.

You think that's likely to happen?

That he wouldn't mind, or that those states pass such legislation.

Although I completely agree with his statement above, my reply is pointing that he wouldn't be supporting states rights if something like that happen.

 

[Ame®icano]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

 

[Ame®icano]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

Lincoln got way more (popular) votes than any other candidate, so there is no way he would not have been President with or without the Electoral College. Period.

Prove me wrong.

Cue even more crickets.

You're so desperate to be right.

Have I said he did not get more votes than any other candidate? Nope.

He won the election, not by winning popular vote, but by wining electoral vote.

Wining popular vote means wining 50% +1 vote. Lincoln didn't have that. Hillary neither.

 

[Pogo]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

Lincoln got way more (popular) votes than any other candidate, so there is no way he would not have been President with or without the Electoral College. Period.

Prove me wrong.

Cue even more crickets.

You're so desperate to be right.

Have I said he did not get more votes than any other candidate? Nope.

He won the election, not by winning popular vote, but by wining electoral vote.

Wining popular vote means wining 50% +1 vote. Lincoln didn't have that. Hillary neither.

That's a majority. Lincoln did not get a majority, nor did Rump, Dubya, Clinton, JFK, Nixon, Truman, Wilson, or 8 other POTUSes of the 19th century.

But that's not what I wrote, is it.

Roll tape.

Lincoln got way more (popular) votes than any other candidate, so there is no way he would not have been President with or without the Electoral College. Period.​

--- that's called a plurality. You don't need a majority to win either a popular vote nor an electoral vote.. You only need a plurality.

Therefore (again) there is no scenario, neither with a popular vote nor with the electoral college, where Lincoln is not elected in 1860. After review, point stands, runner is out.

 

[Montrovant]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

 

[Ame®icano]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

Strange how you cons hate Lincoln and worship those old Democrats

Even stranger that you see hate where there is none.

 

[Lakhota]

11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

It's called states' rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

 

[Montrovant]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

 

[Ame®icano]

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

I replied to Pogo, they you stepped in. I though you were him.

I agree this is within Article 2, Section 1, as I stated before. However, Democrats have no reason for doing this not in one, yet eleven states, since it makes them look like they fixing elections.

Why primaries are different than general elections? If they're willing to fix the primaries, what makes you think they're not doing it in general elections? Changing EC award sure looks like part of it.

 

[Pogo]

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

I've gotta say, that post you quoted with its bizarre references to Prop 8 and Second Amendment, looks to me like a standard boilerplate troll post stacked in somebody's tray in their cubicle (and presumably translated from the original Russian) except in this case he forgot to match his troll template with the subject matter. All manner of non sequiturs abound. The funniest part is where he leads off trying to tell other people THEY don't know what they're talking about..

I didn't even get a boilerplate post when I challenged him -- he just ran away to cry in his borscht.

 

[Pogo]

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

I replied to Pogo, they you stepped in. I though you were him.

I agree this is within Article 2, Section 1, as I stated before. However, Democrats have no reason for doing this not in one, yet eleven states, since it makes them look like they fixing elections.

Why primaries are different than general elections? If they're willing to fix the primaries, what makes you think they're not doing it in general elections? Changing EC award sure looks like part of it.

Once AGAIN as has been pointed out ten times in this thread, Tovarich --- this is an initiative undertaken by state legislatures --- not "Democrats" or any other political party.

And it also means, if it's in place in 2016 and Rump wins the popular vote, then Connecticut's electors go to Rump, even if its citizens voted for Clinton. Why would "Democrats" want that?

 

[Montrovant]

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

I replied to Pogo, they you stepped in. I though you were him.

I agree this is within Article 2, Section 1, as I stated before. However, Democrats have no reason for doing this not in one, yet eleven states, since it makes them look like they fixing elections.

Why primaries are different than general elections? If they're willing to fix the primaries, what makes you think they're not doing it in general elections? Changing EC award sure looks like part of it.

No state has actually done this. The states (and D.C.) have signed on to the plan, but it won't go into effect until enough electoral votes to win an election are pledged.

Do you really not understand why primaries are different from elections? Primaries are about choosing a candidate within a political party. Elections actually determine government representatives. The winner of a primary has no standing in government because of that primary victory.

"Fixing" primaries is also different because there are different rules about what can go on, and because there are different ways in which any sort of verification will be done. The parties are pseudo-private organizations.

How does the popular vote proposition 'fix' any elections?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

/-----/ "You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?" That is so stupid even by your low standards. The eC protect s the voices of the lower populated agricultural states.

 

[ChrisL]

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

 

[Pogo]

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

 

[ChrisL]

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given. Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

 

[ChrisL]

Where to begin?

How about title of this thread, perhaps?

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Well, for me and based on my experiences with the vast majority of leftists who I have spoken with, it is certainly no fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

The title of this thread is a rule that will be changed?

If you are saying this popular vote measure would change the rules of the EC, I'm pretty sure it would not. It is, in fact, only supposed to go into effect if enough states join for a candidate to win the EC vote with their electors, so it is based on the EC continuing to function.

The rules of the EC would remain the same. The way any states involved choose their electors would change.

Also, who is it that cannot "win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules" exactly? Going back through the responses, it would seem to be Democrats you are referencing. Considering a Democrat was president for the previous 2 terms, the idea that that party can't win unless the rules are changed seems pretty silly.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.