Proposed Constitutional Amendments

[DOTR]

Although it may not be clear if this would entail an amendment, the power of the President definitely needs to be put under better control.

then we would be a parliamentary system...a choice explicitly rejected.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great. Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote). Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

 

[DOTR]

We should also repeal the 14th, 17th and 19th amendments. You would never be threatened by the federal government again.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

We should also repeal the 14th, 17th and 19th amendments. You would never be threatened by the federal government again.

Exactly when was I threatened by the federal government?

 

[DOTR]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great. Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote). Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

“Nobody is disputing?” LOL

 

[Bruce Daniels]

LOL in order to even get an amendment on the ballot takes the cooperation of what 2/3'rds of each house. Someone explain why members of Congress would ever vote to cut their own throats?

I'm not saying that any of my suggestions would ever come to pass. I'm just putting the ideas out there (they're not even necessarily my ideas)...

 

[Bruce Daniels]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great. Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote). Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

“Nobody is disputing?” LOL

View attachment 302782

And how much traction did that idea get? Ummm, none.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Absolutely not.

The only way forward in America that leftists have populated with 3rd worlders is either end or restrict democracy or secede. No one is going to tell the Americans how to live in our country, majority or not.

By any token, unrestricted democracy was a stupid move for the American republic - that's how we got into this mess.

Ending anchor babies - obviously.

"Absolutely not" what? None of my proposals, or what? And when you say, "No one is going to tell the Americans how to live in our country, majority or not," I'm going to guess that by "Americans," you mean white people. Are you really that pathetic? But maybe I'm wrong.

By Americans I mean exactly what I say. Freedom loving Americans.... Unfortunately it does seem to be genetic, but not 100% genetic. This means the demographics will need to be preserved in order to preserve America.

What definitely does not preserve America is bringing in foreigners who hate freedoms, no matter which skin color.

And how do we determine which "foreigners" hate freedoms, no matter which skin color? Do we ask immigrants "Do you hate America?" or what? Who gets to decide who comes into the U.S.? You? Me? You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wow! Thank you for a thoughtful reply!

1. I would like to eliminate the Electoral College, but I understand that there are reasons for caution. But why don't you think that at least the decisions of the Electoral College should be tied to the popular vote in some way? Also, my interpretation of the reason for the Electoral College is to prevent the election of a popular demagogue, which the Electoral College manifestly failed to do in 2016. But that's another issue, I guess.

2. I disagree that gerrymandering can't be addressed as simply as I propose. In any case, the system as it is now is NOT working.

3. As I said, I wasn't necessarily in favor of term limits before, either. But the current situation has convinced me. The Republicans are utterly supine before Trump. It's almost pornographic. You didn't comment on my suggestions for the Supreme Court. What do you think about that?

4. How about we compromise on 3 months? I'm OK with that!

1. Aside from the need to prevent a concentrated majority in a few densely-populated areas from overriding the will of a sparser minority, scattered along much sparser areas; there is also a practical consideration. Remember the 2000 election? For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a tie. The difference between Bush and Gore was well within the expected margin of error. Remember how it came down to one state, where the vote was very close; remember all the drama over counting and recounting and recounting the ballots, quibbling over how to interpret ballots that were ambiguous, and so on? Imagine having to do that on the national scale, in order to determine for certain who won the nationwide popular vote. Almost twenty years later, I do not believe that we would yet have been able to reliably determine the outcome. We certainly would not have been able to determine it quickly enough for the result to be known by the time it was time to inaugurate the new President. And I disagree very much with you about the 2016 result. Hitlery Clinton “won” the popular vote, as counted, by a fairly narrow margin, but there is credible evidence that thee may have been enough voter fraud, just in California alone, to give her that edge that otherwise would have gone to Donald Trump. In any event, looking at the districts (See image below), we see a brilliant illustration of the genius of the Electoral College system's purpose. Clinton may have won the popular vote, but she only won a few relatively small parts of the country. If she was allowed to win the election, it would have had the effect, as I said, of disenfranchising the voters in most of the country; which is something that the great men who devised this system intended to prevent.
   
   
2. Again, I admit that it is a problem. But I believe that dictating from the federal level how states are to divide themselves into districts can only make it worse, while violating the intent of the great men who wrote our Constitution, of giving more power and sovereignty to the states, and less to the federal government. Further, having the federal government impose a one-size-fits-all dictate on the states would prevent the states from being able to do what best serves their interests, and the interests of their residents.
   
   
3. Here and in your first point, you're making it clear that your primary motive is a dislike for Mr,. Trump, and a wish that he had lost to Mrs. Clinton. In other words, you want to change the rules, not because you want rules that make better sense, but that you want rules that would produce the outcome that you wish had been produced. Mr. Trump won the election, fair and square; and Mrs. Clinton lost, in spite of efforts to cheat on her behalf. Deal with it.
   
   
4. I can live with that. I prefer a shorter limit.

2016 Presidential Election results by district.

Or, if you like a more artistic rendering, I'm fond of the Trumpland/Clinton Archipelago model…

 

[DOTR]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Er....no. You lose. And you are stuck with the consequences of losing.

However here is one I would approve of.

“The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed.”

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great. Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote). Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

“Nobody is disputing?” LOL

View attachment 302782

And how much traction did that idea get? Ummm, none.

It is fervently believed by every loony liberal out there. But you said “nobody is disputing”. Far from “nobody” we have their leader disputing it...and she still retains her sycophants.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great.

I don't think anyone is proposing that.

Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote).

Good thing we don't elect the President by popular vote.

Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

No, he was impeached because the Democrats are sore losers. They've as much as admitted that they've been trying to undo the results of the 2016 election since even before Trump was inaugurated in 2017.

Both of the two previous Democratic Presidents openly engaged in far worse and far more numerous acts of corruption and abuse, than anything that they've even been able to build the shakiest cases for against president Trump; and we know enough of Hitlery Clinton's nature and character that we can safely assume that she would have, as well. Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border. American lives have been lost on American soil, as a result of his traitorous acts. For that alone, he should have been impeached, removed from office, criminally prosecuted, and put to death by firing squad.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And how do we determine which "foreigners" hate freedoms, no matter which skin color? Do we ask immigrants "Do you hate America?" or what? Who gets to decide who comes into the U.S.? You? Me? You're a fucking idiot.

That falls under the authority of the federal government. The decision as to what foreigners to allow to enter this country, to remain here, and to whom to be offered a chance at citizenship, should be made solely on what is deemed to be in the best interest of this country and its extant citizenry.

Exactly how to vet foreign nationals wanting to visit here, or live here, or seek citizenship; that's above my pay grade. But certainly, we want to accept only those who are likely to assimilate into our culture, and become productive members of our society; and who will be a benefit to our society as a whole, and to those of us who are already part of it.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Wow! Thank you for a thoughtful reply!

1. I would like to eliminate the Electoral College, but I understand that there are reasons for caution. But why don't you think that at least the decisions of the Electoral College should be tied to the popular vote in some way? Also, my interpretation of the reason for the Electoral College is to prevent the election of a popular demagogue, which the Electoral College manifestly failed to do in 2016. But that's another issue, I guess.

2. I disagree that gerrymandering can't be addressed as simply as I propose. In any case, the system as it is now is NOT working.

3. As I said, I wasn't necessarily in favor of term limits before, either. But the current situation has convinced me. The Republicans are utterly supine before Trump. It's almost pornographic. You didn't comment on my suggestions for the Supreme Court. What do you think about that?

4. How about we compromise on 3 months? I'm OK with that!

1. Aside from the need to prevent a concentrated majority in a few densely-populated areas from overriding the will of a sparser minority, scattered along much sparser areas; there is also a practical consideration. Remember the 2000 election? For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a tie. The difference between Bush and Gore was well within the expected margin of error. Remember how it came down to one state, where the vote was very close; remember all the drama over counting and recounting and recounting the ballots, quibbling over how to interpret ballots that were ambiguous, and so on? Imagine having to do that on the national scale, in order to determine for certain who won the nationwide popular vote. Almost twenty years later, I do not believe that we would yet have been able to reliably determine the outcome. We certainly would not have been able to determine it quickly enough for the result to be known by the time it was time to inaugurate the new President. And I disagree very much with you about the 2016 result. Hitlery Clinton “won” the popular vote, as counted, by a fairly narrow margin, but there is credible evidence that thee may have been enough voter fraud, just in California alone, to give her that edge that otherwise would have gone to Donald Trump. In any event, looking at the districts (See image below), we see a brilliant illustration of the genius of the Electoral College system's purpose. Clinton may have won the popular vote, but she only won a few relatively small parts of the country. If she was allowed to win the election, it would have had the effect, as I said, of disenfranchising the voters in most of the country; which is something that the great men who devised this system intended to prevent.
   
   
2. Again, I admit that it is a problem. But I believe that dictating from the federal level how states are to divide themselves into districts can only make it worse, while violating the intent of the great men who wrote out Constitution, of giving more power and sovereignty to the states, and less to the federal government. Further, having the federal government impose a one-size-fits-all dictate on the states would prevent the states from being able to do what best serves their interests, and the interests of their residents.
   
   
3. Here and in your first point, you're making it clear that your primary motive is a dislike for Mr,. Trump, and a wish that he had lost to Mrs. Clinton. In other words, you want to change the rules, not because you want rules that make better sense, but that you want rules that would produce the outcome that you wish had been produced. Mr. Trump won the election, fair and square; and Mrs. Clinton lost, in spite of efforts to cheat on her behalf. Deal with it.
   
   
4. I can live with that. I prefer a shorter limit.

View attachment 302781
2016 Presidential Election results by district.

Or, if you like a more artistic rendering, I'm fond of the Trumpland/Clinton Archipelago model…

View attachment 302783 View attachment 302784

Thanks again for actually thinking about this!

1. I don't really accept your reason for eliminating the Electoral College for President. You seem to be saying that even though Clinton won more votes than Trump, all of her votes don't really count because they were mostly in cities. Is that right? The FACT that more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump is somehow invalidated by where they live? And "Credible evidence" of voter fraud? Prove it. That is complete bullshit. PROVE IT! Where is the evidence?

Also, you don't address my other proposal for a modified Electoral College. What do you think about that?

2. I share your wariness of the Federal Government imposing anything on the states. My dad (a liberal Republican, when such a thing existed) always emphasized the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But sometimes it's necessary. Gerrymandering has become a huge problem, unless you don't care about political parties rigging elections.

3. You are correct that I despise Trump. He is utterly unqualified to be President. But that is not the reason for my term limit proposals, except insofar that he inspired them. Republicans are now willing to put up with pretty much anything from Trump, because if they don't, he'll destroy them in the next election. The only Republicans who have been willing to go up against Trump have been ones who were retiring. If elected officials had to leave office anyway, rather than run again, maybe they'd actually do things that were best for the country instead of what's best for their political career.

4. We compromised and came to an agreement!! That is so great...

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great.

I don't think anyone is proposing that.

Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote).

Good thing we don't elect the President by popular vote.

Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

No, he was impeached because the Democrats are sore losers. They've as much as admitted that they've been trying to undo the results of the 2016 election since even before Trump was inaugurated in 2017.

Both of the two previous Democratic Presidents openly engaged in far worse and far more numerous acts of corruption and abuse, than anything that they've even been able to build the shakiest cases for against president Trump; and we know enough of Hitlery Clinton's nature and character that we can safely assume that she would have, as well. Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border. American lives have been lost on American soil, as a result of his traitorous acts. For that alone, he should have been impeached, removed from office, criminally prosecuted, and put to death by firing squad.

If the two previous Democratic Presidents openly engaged in far worse and far more numerous acts of corruption and abuse, why weren't they impeached (or convicted)? You claim that "Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border." Exactly how did Obama do that?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Yeah, let's just elect Trump king forever and then everything will be great.

I don't think anyone is proposing that.

Actually, no one is disputing that Clinton lost the election in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote).

Good thing we don't elect the President by popular vote.

Trump was impeached because of what he DID, pure and simple. But you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, so g'bye...

No, he was impeached because the Democrats are sore losers. They've as much as admitted that they've been trying to undo the results of the 2016 election since even before Trump was inaugurated in 2017.

Both of the two previous Democratic Presidents openly engaged in far worse and far more numerous acts of corruption and abuse, than anything that they've even been able to build the shakiest cases for against president Trump; and we know enough of Hitlery Clinton's nature and character that we can safely assume that she would have, as well. Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border. American lives have been lost on American soil, as a result of his traitorous acts. For that alone, he should have been impeached, removed from office, criminally prosecuted, and put to death by firing squad.

REALLY? REALLY? Well, then, where are the impeachments of Bill Clinton or Obama? Where are the indictments? If their transgressions were so heinous, where are the indictments? But fuck you, assholes. You idiots are going to support Trump no matter what. But why? He's spent his entire life amassing a personal fortune, all the while screwing the little guys who worked for him whenever possible, but now -- all of a sudden -- he cares about little guys like YOU. Yeah, right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thanks again for actually thinking about this!

1. I don't really accept your reason for eliminating the Electoral College for President. You seem to be saying that even though Clinton won more votes than Trump, all of her votes don't really count because they were mostly in cities. Is that right? The FACT that more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump is somehow invalidated by where they live? And "Credible evidence" of voter fraud? Prove it. That is complete bullshit. PROVE IT! Where is the evidence?

Also, you don't address my other proposal for a modified Electoral College. What do you think about that?

2. I share your wariness of the Federal Government imposing anything on the states. My dad (a liberal Republican, when such a thing existed) always emphasized the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But sometimes it's necessary. Gerrymandering has become a huge problem, unless you don't care about political parties rigging elections.

3. You are correct that I despise Trump. He is utterly unqualified to be President. But that is not the reason for my term limit proposals, except insofar that he inspired them. Republicans are now willing to put up with pretty much anything from Trump, because if they don't, he'll destroy them in the next election. The only Republicans who have been willing to go up against Trump have been ones who were retiring. If elected officials had to leave office anyway, rather than run again, maybe they'd actually do things that were best for the country instead of what's best for their political career.

4. We compromised and came to an agreement!! That is so great...

1. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized that sparsely-populated areas, and the people living in such areas, had different needs and interests than those of densely-populated areas, and those who lived in such areas. They also recognized that a straight popular vote would mean that the densely-populated areas would get all of the representation, and the sparse areas would get little or none at all. This difference is greater, now, than it was, then; with a greater portion of our population squeezed into relatively few very densely-populated areas, and large expanses of our country being much more sparsely populated, by people whose needs and interests are even more different than those of the densely-populated areas. And given current population distribution and voting patterns, a nationwide popular vote would be determined entirely by a few small, densely-populated areas of our country, while effectively disenfranchising the populations of the much larger, sparsely-populated areas. The graphics that I posted in a previous posting clearly show this. But I think I am beginning to see that you don't really care about fair representation; you care about the fact that this time around, your side lost, and you want the rules changed so that your side would have won. And I did address your 1B proposal. I believe it would produce the same result as a straight popular vote, which would be to disenfranchise the voters in most of the country; allowing just a few small densely-populated areas to determine the outcome; which is exactly what the great men who devised the Electoral College system intended it to prevent. I believe, also, as I think I stated before, that the intent was to allow each state to determine for itself how its Electors would be allocated; and I see no justification for taking that power away from the states and giving it to the federal government. If I were to propose a change to how a state allocates its Electors, I would propose this as being most reflective of the overall intent; that each district should select one Elector based on the popular vote in that district, and then the state's two additional Electors corresponding to its Senators would be selected according to the statewide popular vote. I would not, however, support any force being applied from the federal level to the states to follow this or any other pattern; this power belongs to the states, and not to the federal government.
   
   
2. All that your proposal would accomplish is to give the federal government the power to gerrymander all of the districts in all of the states. Even if we assume that gerrymandering now blatantly occurs in all the districts in all of the states, that is still a better situation than putting all of that power in the hands of one unified federal government. Not only would centralized gerrymandering, as your proposal would create, result in greater abuses and misrepresentation, but it would stifle any ability on the part of any state to enact measures to mitigate the gerrymandering problem within that state.
   
   
3. I've lost track of how we got from term limits to your serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS); but in any event, that you do not like the fact that Trump won the last Presidential election fair and square, and is going to easily win the next one too; is absolutely not a valid reason for wanting to change the Constitution, to change the rules, to produce a different result. If your side wants to win, it needs to come up with a candidate that can win within the rules that are established. Your side needs to stop pandering to criminals and traitors and perverts and other subhuman dregs of our population, and pay attention to the needs and interests of mainstream Americans. Your side, your candidate, called us “deplorables”, and falsely accused us of all manner of hatred and bigotry and other vices,and made it absolutely clear that you loathed our values, and rejected our interests; while Mr. Trump indicated that he respected us as Americans, and promised to stand for and fight for our values and interests; and as President, he has held true to that promise. Why should any mainstream American, any American who is not a faggot, or a tranny, or a pedophile, or a racist, or a violent criminal, or a drug abuser, or a traitor, or some other similar subhuman dreg of humanity, vote for your side? Your side has made it clear who its constituency is.
   
   
   “It is all too clear the company you keep. Service them well, and hold their custom, for you shall have none of mine.”
   — Judge Turpin in Steven Sondheim's musical, Sweeny Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street​

You claim that "Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border." Exactly how did Obama do that?

Our country is under foreign invasion, by criminals coming across our southern border. As President, Mr. Obama used the power of his office to give aid, comfort, and support to these invaders. This conduct exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. It also constitutes felony-level malfeasance, as a violation of his duty to see to the defense of our nation against foreign attack. He took the side of this country's enemies, against the side of this country, and of his fellow Americans. Many other Democratic elected misrepresentatives did the same. This is absolutely outrageous, unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable conduct for any American, much less any elected public servant. American citizens have been killed on American soil, as a result of this treachery. The whole lot of them, every single public servant who is guilty of this behavior, belongs in front of a firing squad.

 

[gipper]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Those are terrible ideas... solutions looking for a problem to solve.

Actually not.

There is a problem with the EC when the Electors act contrary to the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution provides that we are to guaranteed a Republican form of government. Sounds like you're still pissed that Hitlery lost.

Why bother? Dismantle the entire government and break up the US into multiple city states.

Why bother? Dismantle the entire government and break up the US into multiple city states.

Sure, and guarantee the status of the (Dis)United States as second class countries. Nukes will only get you so far. The way things are going, we might more of a danger to each other than to anyone else. Can't we all just get along?

Breaking up the US hardly means we become second class. That kind of thinking is very convenient and the Oligarchs love it.

Are you a believer in a perpetual union?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Those are terrible ideas... solutions looking for a problem to solve.

Really? Solutions looking for a problem to solve? Well, let's take a look:

At least four times in the history of the United States, the Presidential candidate who won the popular vote was not elected. Two of those times occurred in the last twenty years. The problem? That's not democracy. Now, if you want to argue that the United States is not a democracy, that's a different issue...

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

This would bring the Electoral College totals into closer agreement with the popular vote totals. By counting Senators in awarding Electors, lower populated states are given an advantage that larger states don't get. Since Representatives are awarded based on population, eliminating Senators from the total would tie the number of Electors more closely to the actual population, which in turn would make the result closer to the actual popular vote. Awarding the electoral votes proportionally, instead of a winner take all scheme, would also help accomplish that goal.

Are you saying that gerrymandering is NOT a problem? It's basically cheating -- set things up so that you almost HAVE to win.

For many years, I wasn't sure whether term limits were a good idea or not. But the Trump Era has convinced me that not only are term limits a good idea, they are absolutely necessary. The spectacle of Representatives and Senators tolerating, excusing, and trying to justify the reprehensible behavior of Trump has been appalling (a problem). They will put up with ANYTHING to keep their cushy government jobs. So they need to be told when they have to go.

Supreme Court Justices need to be appointed to limited terms, instead of for life. This will avoid the extreme partisan rancor that we've seen in the last few appointments (a problem). By appointing Justices for 18-year terms, they will be insulated from the day-to-day vagaries of politics, yet they will have to leave eventually. That way, also, each President will have the opportunity to appoint two Justices during each term. And the next President will have the same opportunity, and so on. So there won't be so much riding on every Supreme Court Justice appointment, because there will be another one in two years -- instead of waiting 20-some years for somebody to die.

This is not a democracy, so you have a solution looking for a problem to solve.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1A. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President by the popular vote.

1B. If the Electoral College is retained, each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Representatives (only) to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Each state’s electoral votes then shall be awarded proportionally, according to the popular vote totals.

2. Gerrymandering is prohibited. Congressional districts shall be drawn along county (or parish) lines whenever possible. When they are not, an explanation must be given to the public.

3. Term limits for elected Federal officers:

3A. No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than six times, and no person who has been a Representative, or acted as a Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office more than five times.

3B. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice, and no person who has been a Senator, or acted as a Senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator shall be elected to the office more than once.

3C. Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office for a term of eighteen years, after which they must resign. The President shall appoint one Justice within six months after the beginning of each Presidential term, and another Justice within six months after the beginning of the third year of each Presidential term.

4. When the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” is required, that body shall have six months in which to act. If the Senate fails to act within six months, their “Advice and Consent” is no longer required.

Those are terrible ideas... solutions looking for a problem to solve.

Actually not.

There is a problem with the EC when the Electors act contrary to the original intent of the Framers.

The Constitution provides that we are to guaranteed a Republican form of government. Sounds like you're still pissed that Hitlery lost.

Why bother? Dismantle the entire government and break up the US into multiple city states.

Why bother? Dismantle the entire government and break up the US into multiple city states.

Sure, and guarantee the status of the (Dis)United States as second class countries. Nukes will only get you so far. The way things are going, we might more of a danger to each other than to anyone else. Can't we all just get along?

Any reason you're quoting me regarding nukes?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Thanks again for actually thinking about this!

1. I don't really accept your reason for eliminating the Electoral College for President. You seem to be saying that even though Clinton won more votes than Trump, all of her votes don't really count because they were mostly in cities. Is that right? The FACT that more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump is somehow invalidated by where they live? And "Credible evidence" of voter fraud? Prove it. That is complete bullshit. PROVE IT! Where is the evidence?

Also, you don't address my other proposal for a modified Electoral College. What do you think about that?

2. I share your wariness of the Federal Government imposing anything on the states. My dad (a liberal Republican, when such a thing existed) always emphasized the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But sometimes it's necessary. Gerrymandering has become a huge problem, unless you don't care about political parties rigging elections.

3. You are correct that I despise Trump. He is utterly unqualified to be President. But that is not the reason for my term limit proposals, except insofar that he inspired them. Republicans are now willing to put up with pretty much anything from Trump, because if they don't, he'll destroy them in the next election. The only Republicans who have been willing to go up against Trump have been ones who were retiring. If elected officials had to leave office anyway, rather than run again, maybe they'd actually do things that were best for the country instead of what's best for their political career.

4. We compromised and came to an agreement!! That is so great...

1. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized that sparsely-populated areas, and the people living in such areas, had different needs and interests than those of densely-populated areas, and those who lived in such areas. They also recognized that a straight popular vote would mean that the densely-populated areas would get all of the representation, and the sparse areas would get little or none at all. This difference is greater, now, than it was, then; with a greater portion of our population squeezed into relatively few very densely-populated areas, and large expanses of our country being much more sparsely populated, by people whose needs and interests are even more different than those of the densely-populated areas. And given current population distribution and voting patterns, a nationwide popular vote would be determined entirely by a few small, densely-populated areas of our country, while effectively disenfranchising the populations of the much larger, sparsely-populated areas. The graphics that I posted in a previous posting clearly show this. But I think I am beginning to see that you don't really care about fair representation; you care about the fact that this time around, your side lost, and you want the rules changed so that your side would have won. And I did address your 1B proposal. I believe it would produce the same result as a straight popular vote, which would be to disenfranchise the voters in most of the country; allowing just a few small densely-populated areas to determine the outcome; which is exactly what the great men who devised the Electoral College system intended it to prevent. I believe, also, as I think I stated before, that the intent was to allow each state to determine for itself how its Electors would be allocated; and I see no justification for taking that power away from the states and giving it to the federal government. If I were to propose a change to how a state allocates its Electors, I would propose this as being most reflective of the overall intent; that each district should select one Elector based on the popular vote in that district, and then the state's two additional Electors corresponding to its Senators would be selected according to the statewide popular vote. I would not, however, support any force being applied from the federal level to the states to follow this or any other pattern; this power belongs to the states, and not to the federal governmen
2. All that your proposal would accomplish is to give the federal government the power to gerrymander all of the districts in all of the states. Even if we assume that gerrymandering now blatantly occurs in all the districts in all of the states, that is still a better situation than putting all of that power in the hands of one unified federal government. Not only would centralized gerrymandering, as your proposal would create, result in greater abuses and misrepresentation, but it would stifle any ability on the part of any state to enact measures to mitigate the gerrymandering problem within that state.
   
   
3. I've lost track of how we got from term limits to your serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS); but in any event, that you do not like the fact that Trump won the last Presidential election fair and square, and is going to easily win the next one too; is absolutely not a valid reason for wanting to change the Constitution, to change the rules, to produce a different result. If your side wants to win, it needs to come up with a candidate that can win within the rules that are established. Your side needs to stop pandering to criminals and traitors and perverts and other subhuman dregs of our population, and pay attention to the needs and interests of mainstream Americans. Your side, your candidate, called us “deplorables”, and falsely accused us of all manner of hatred and bigotry and other vices,and made it absolutely clear that you loathed our values, and rejected our interests; while Mr. Trump indicated that he respected us as Americans, and promised to stand for and fight for our values and interests; and as President, he has held true to that promise. Why should any mainstream American, any American who is not a faggot, or a tranny, or a pedophile, or a racist, or a violent criminal, or a drug abuser, or a traitor, or some other similar subhuman dreg of humanity, vote for your side? Your side has made it clear who its constituency is.
   
   
   “It is all too clear the company you keep. Service them well, and hold their custom, for you shall have none of mine.”
   — Judge Turpin in Steven Sondheim's musical, Sweeny Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street​

You claim that "Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border." Exactly how did Obama do that?

Our country is under foreign invasion, by criminals coming across our southern border. As President, Mr. Obama used the power of his office to give aid, comfort, and support to these invaders. This conduct exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. It also constitutes felony-level malfeasance, as a violation of his duty to see to the defense of our nation against foreign attack. He took the side of this country's enemies, against the side of this country, and of his fellow Americans. Many other Democratic elected misrepresentatives did the same. This is absolutely outrageous, unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable conduct for any American, much less any elected public servant. American citizens have been killed on American soil, as a result of this treachery. The whole lot of them, every single public servant who is guilty of this behavior, belongs in front of a firing squad.

Thanks again for actually thinking about this!

1. I don't really accept your reason for eliminating the Electoral College for President. You seem to be saying that even though Clinton won more votes than Trump, all of her votes don't really count because they were mostly in cities. Is that right? The FACT that more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump is somehow invalidated by where they live? And "Credible evidence" of voter fraud? Prove it. That is complete bullshit. PROVE IT! Where is the evidence?

Also, you don't address my other proposal for a modified Electoral College. What do you think about that?

2. I share your wariness of the Federal Government imposing anything on the states. My dad (a liberal Republican, when such a thing existed) always emphasized the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But sometimes it's necessary. Gerrymandering has become a huge problem, unless you don't care about political parties rigging elections.

3. You are correct that I despise Trump. He is utterly unqualified to be President. But that is not the reason for my term limit proposals, except insofar that he inspired them. Republicans are now willing to put up with pretty much anything from Trump, because if they don't, he'll destroy them in the next election. The only Republicans who have been willing to go up against Trump have been ones who were retiring. If elected officials had to leave office anyway, rather than run again, maybe they'd actually do things that were best for the country instead of what's best for their political career.

4. We compromised and came to an agreement!! That is so great...

1. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized that sparsely-populated areas, and the people living in such areas, had different needs and interests than those of densely-populated areas, and those who lived in such areas. They also recognized that a straight popular vote would mean that the densely-populated areas would get all of the representation, and the sparse areas would get little or none at all. This difference is greater, now, than it was, then; with a greater portion of our population squeezed into relatively few very densely-populated areas, and large expanses of our country being much more sparsely populated, by people whose needs and interests are even more different than those of the densely-populated areas. And given current population distribution and voting patterns, a nationwide popular vote would be determined entirely by a few small, densely-populated areas of our country, while effectively disenfranchising the populations of the much larger, sparsely-populated areas. The graphics that I posted in a previous posting clearly show this. But I think I am beginning to see that you don't really care about fair representation; you care about the fact that this time around, your side lost, and you want the rules changed so that your side would have won. And I did address your 1B proposal. I believe it would produce the same result as a straight popular vote, which would be to disenfranchise the voters in most of the country; allowing just a few small densely-populated areas to determine the outcome; which is exactly what the great men who devised the Electoral College system intended it to prevent. I believe, also, as I think I stated before, that the intent was to allow each state to determine for itself how its Electors would be allocated; and I see no justification for taking that power away from the states and giving it to the federal government. If I were to propose a change to how a state allocates its Electors, I would propose this as being most reflective of the overall intent; that each district should select one Elector based on the popular vote in that district, and then the state's two additional Electors corresponding to its Senators would be selected according to the statewide popular vote. I would not, however, support any force being applied from the federal level to the states to follow this or any other pattern; this power belongs to the states, and not to the federal government.
   
   
2. All that your proposal would accomplish is to give the federal government the power to gerrymander all of the districts in all of the states. Even if we assume that gerrymandering now blatantly occurs in all the districts in all of the states, that is still a better situation than putting all of that power in the hands of one unified federal government. Not only would centralized gerrymandering, as your proposal would create, result in greater abuses and misrepresentation, but it would stifle any ability on the part of any state to enact measures to mitigate the gerrymandering problem within that state.
   
   
3. I've lost track of how we got from term limits to your serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS); but in any event, that you do not like the fact that Trump won the last Presidential election fair and square, and is going to easily win the next one too; is absolutely not a valid reason for wanting to change the Constitution, to change the rules, to produce a different result. If your side wants to win, it needs to come up with a candidate that can win within the rules that are established. Your side needs to stop pandering to criminals and traitors and perverts and other subhuman dregs of our population, and pay attention to the needs and interests of mainstream Americans. Your side, your candidate, called us “deplorables”, and falsely accused us of all manner of hatred and bigotry and other vices,and made it absolutely clear that you loathed our values, and rejected our interests; while Mr. Trump indicated that he respected us as Americans, and promised to stand for and fight for our values and interests; and as President, he has held true to that promise. Why should any mainstream American, any American who is not a faggot, or a tranny, or a pedophile, or a racist, or a violent criminal, or a drug abuser, or a traitor, or some other similar subhuman dreg of humanity, vote for your side? Your side has made it clear who its constituency is.
   
   
   “It is all too clear the company you keep. Service them well, and hold their custom, for you shall have none of mine.”
   — Judge Turpin in Steven Sondheim's musical, Sweeny Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street​

You claim that "Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border." Exactly how did Obama do that?

Our country is under foreign invasion, by criminals coming across our southern border. As President, Mr. Obama used the power of his office to give aid, comfort, and support to these invaders. This conduct exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. It also constitutes felony-level malfeasance, as a violation of his duty to see to the defense of our nation against foreign attack. He took the side of this country's enemies, against the side of this country, and of his fellow Americans. Many other Democratic elected misrepresentatives did the same. This is absolutely outrageous, unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable conduct for any American, much less any elected public servant. American citizens have been killed on American soil, as a result of this treachery. The whole lot of them, every single public servant who is guilty of this behavior, belongs in front of a firing squad.

Thanks again for actually thinking about this!

1. I don't really accept your reason for eliminating the Electoral College for President. You seem to be saying that even though Clinton won more votes than Trump, all of her votes don't really count because they were mostly in cities. Is that right? The FACT that more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump is somehow invalidated by where they live? And "Credible evidence" of voter fraud? Prove it. That is complete bullshit. PROVE IT! Where is the evidence?

Also, you don't address my other proposal for a modified Electoral College. What do you think about that?

2. I share your wariness of the Federal Government imposing anything on the states. My dad (a liberal Republican, when such a thing existed) always emphasized the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But sometimes it's necessary. Gerrymandering has become a huge problem, unless you don't care about political parties rigging elections.

3. You are correct that I despise Trump. He is utterly unqualified to be President. But that is not the reason for my term limit proposals, except insofar that he inspired them. Republicans are now willing to put up with pretty much anything from Trump, because if they don't, he'll destroy them in the next election. The only Republicans who have been willing to go up against Trump have been ones who were retiring. If elected officials had to leave office anyway, rather than run again, maybe they'd actually do things that were best for the country instead of what's best for their political career.

4. We compromised and came to an agreement!! That is so great...

1. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized that sparsely-populated areas, and the people living in such areas, had different needs and interests than those of densely-populated areas, and those who lived in such areas. They also recognized that a straight popular vote would mean that the densely-populated areas would get all of the representation, and the sparse areas would get little or none at all. This difference is greater, now, than it was, then; with a greater portion of our population squeezed into relatively few very densely-populated areas, and large expanses of our country being much more sparsely populated, by people whose needs and interests are even more different than those of the densely-populated areas. And given current population distribution and voting patterns, a nationwide popular vote would be determined entirely by a few small, densely-populated areas of our country, while effectively disenfranchising the populations of the much larger, sparsely-populated areas. The graphics that I posted in a previous posting clearly show this. But I think I am beginning to see that you don't really care about fair representation; you care about the fact that this time around, your side lost, and you want the rules changed so that your side would have won. And I did address your 1B proposal. I believe it would produce the same result as a straight popular vote, which would be to disenfranchise the voters in most of the country; allowing just a few small densely-populated areas to determine the outcome; which is exactly what the great men who devised the Electoral College system intended it to prevent. I believe, also, as I think I stated before, that the intent was to allow each state to determine for itself how its Electors would be allocated; and I see no justification for taking that power away from the states and giving it to the federal government. If I were to propose a change to how a state allocates its Electors, I would propose this as being most reflective of the overall intent; that each district should select one Elector based on the popular vote in that district, and then the state's two additional Electors corresponding to its Senators would be selected according to the statewide popular vote. I would not, however, support any force being applied from the federal level to the states to follow this or any other pattern; this power belongs to the states, and not to the federal government.
   
   
2. All that your proposal would accomplish is to give the federal government the power to gerrymander all of the districts in all of the states. Even if we assume that gerrymandering now blatantly occurs in all the districts in all of the states, that is still a better situation than putting all of that power in the hands of one unified federal government. Not only would centralized gerrymandering, as your proposal would create, result in greater abuses and misrepresentation, but it would stifle any ability on the part of any state to enact measures to mitigate the gerrymandering problem within that state.
   
   
3. I've lost track of how we got from term limits to your serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS); but in any event, that you do not like the fact that Trump won the last Presidential election fair and square, and is going to easily win the next one too; is absolutely not a valid reason for wanting to change the Constitution, to change the rules, to produce a different result. If your side wants to win, it needs to come up with a candidate that can win within the rules that are established. Your side needs to stop pandering to criminals and traitors and perverts and other subhuman dregs of our population, and pay attention to the needs and interests of mainstream Americans. Your side, your candidate, called us “deplorables”, and falsely accused us of all manner of hatred and bigotry and other vices,and made it absolutely clear that you loathed our values, and rejected our interests; while Mr. Trump indicated that he respected us as Americans, and promised to stand for and fight for our values and interests; and as President, he has held true to that promise. Why should any mainstream American, any American who is not a faggot, or a tranny, or a pedophile, or a racist, or a violent criminal, or a drug abuser, or a traitor, or some other similar subhuman dreg of humanity, vote for your side? Your side has made it clear who its constituency is.
   
   
   “It is all too clear the company you keep. Service them well, and hold their custom, for you shall have none of mine.”
   — Judge Turpin in Steven Sondheim's musical, Sweeny Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street​

You claim that "Obama, in fact, engaged in outright, blatant treason, by giving aid and support to foreign criminals invading this country across our southern border." Exactly how did Obama do that?

Our country is under foreign invasion, by criminals coming across our southern border. As President, Mr. Obama used the power of his office to give aid, comfort, and support to these invaders. This conduct exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. It also constitutes felony-level malfeasance, as a violation of his duty to see to the defense of our nation against foreign attack. He took the side of this country's enemies, against the side of this country, and of his fellow Americans. Many other Democratic elected misrepresentatives did the same. This is absolutely outrageous, unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable conduct for any American, much less any elected public servant. American citizens have been killed on American soil, as a result of this treachery. The whole lot of them, every single public servant who is guilty of this behavior, belongs in front of a firing squad.

Well, I was going to try to respond to you point by point, but then I realized that you just wouldn't listen. You wonder why should "any American who is not a faggot, or a tranny, or a pedophile, or a racist, or a violent criminal, or a drug abuser, or a traitor, or some other similar subhuman dreg of humanity, vote for your side?" When you ask the question that way, it's clear what you think. Faggots = trannies = pedophiles = racists = violent criminals = drug abusers = traitors = subhuman dregs of humanity = liberals = me. We're all the same to you. Fuck you.