Thats what I just said. and I"m saying the local Jail can be a lot worse than prison. the mixture of people is too much.
Your comment is threatening as well as being arrogant. And very un-Texas-like. You have never heard any of the people here whom you so clearly despise say anything even remotely threatening to you. WE do not wish to control you or "come for you". It is people like you who would turn this country to a second civil war.
I'm not harping.
Why not address Doc's comment about
A wrong assessment. You neglect the "tyranny of the majority". Democrats want the ability, when they are in the majority, to ignore the rule-of-law and ignore due process to persecute any and all persons that do not adhere to their agenda for any reason. You might want to consider how mob rule, "the tyranny of he majority", worked out during the French Revolution.
How so? It is simply a different weighted system for vote counting. Actually, one can make the assertion that the EC is an early form of DEI. Giving a helping hand to those who are disadvantaged to achieve equity. The very thing Democrats contend they want!
Democrats do not believe that people should get ahead through hard work. Democratic policies undermine getting ahead through hard work. Democrats believe that it is the obligation of the state to assist the disadvantage achieve equity without having to work!
You are projecting. You are attributing emotions to others that mirror what you actually feel for them. You have no understanding of the purpose of the EC or how it enabled the United States of America to actually emerge as a union of thirteen separate colonies. I tried to explain the history behind it but you were not interested.
It would still be representative government even with direct voting for the Presiendent. We already count those votes. It wasn't just about equalizing out the votes. It was also because they could not get accurate counts to Washington fast enough. In fact, it was more about that. The most important part is the way they established our repesentatives. But people are so distrustful of Congressm they convenietly leave that part out.
I'm not a liberal Pat. I'm not even a Democrat. I am certainly not emotional about this. I expected Harris to lose, or at least a good chance. That doesn't change the fact that the EC is outdated.
You're changing your position. Reporting to "headquarters" has nothing whatsoever to do with the EC. It has to do with the incompetent way the Dems want to run elections. My group was watching three different channels. They ALL had different numbers. Fox was very excited to call races for Harris and so twice called races for her with very small percentages of the vote in and had to change them to undecided and then to Trump. Even after most of the polls were closed and the counts were over 80% complete, Fox refused to call races for Trump so the EC tally was way off and every channel was different. Only the reporting from the internet which we were monitoring using a tablet was current and accurate. That says pretty bad stuff about CNN, FOX, and CBS and they spend millions on their presentation boards and training for how to use the fancy software.
Now you're just babbling. The House and Senate are elected directly by the "people". People are distrustful of members of Congress for good reason. Ask yourself why anyone who manages to get elected more than once ends up a millionaire. We don't pay them that well and it costs a lot of money to have a residence in DC as well as in their home districts. Yet, they all fight to the death to get reelected because they need the power to keep the gravy train rolling. There are groups who mirror Pelosi's trades but they have to do them at least a month out of sync due to the poor reporting of Congressional trades, so the mimics don't make anywhere near as much as the models show that the Pelosi's make. There are rules against insider trading for you and me but Congress gets to do whatever they want. These are the people you want me to trust?
When you meet at the Convention of States, you need to call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to restore the selection of Senators back to the state legislatures. This my be unpopular, but the voting age needs to be raised to at lest 25 per Churchill's admonishment that the young are unabashedly liberal and it takes a while before the "see the light" and become conservative and voting accordingly.
No. The people should elect the Senators
Maybe, but if the telegraph would have been operational they would have figured out something different. They certainly had to know how long it took a horse to travel to Georgia, and how long it would take to count all those votes.
You have a valid point in citing the Illinois legislature. As is typical, it can go both ways. Would John Tester have been appointed as a senator by the Montana legislature? Perhaps the biggest debacle that I am trying to figure out is how Georgia could have ended-up with two Democratic senators!!!
