Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

Math.........I know it can be hard. But it is a demonstrable fact Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than trump.

But, we both know you are pretending you don't know what votes I'm talking about. It's quite silly.

 

nor have I ever suggested otherwise. hence..........strawman

 

Newsflash.........most Americans don't care what illegals, Californians, and New Yorkers want.

 

Cool.

Trump: 304, Clinton: 227.

304 > 227

 

Illegals can't vote in federal elections, so that is a really silly thing to post. MOST americans, reside in populated cities. And MOST americans, rejected trump at the ballot box.

 

Math. Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than trump did. The EC selected trump anyway. This is a travesty to freedom, and entirely un-American to have a person serving in the highest office in the world, who the people he is governing specifically voted against him.

 

Good luck with your amendment. Which 38 states do you think will ratify an amendment that reduces their ability to choose the president?

 

Once again, newsflash. It will take a constitutional amendment to change Presidential elections. There's a reason it is set up this way. The founding fathers didn't like urban rats either.

 

Ok, the scene is set, in 2020 we're going with the popular vote and not the EC. It just so happens that it's Trump v Hillary again.

But this time, Trump wins the popular vote and Hillary wins the EC vote. So who's president, or, will the Democrats want to switch again?

Why not just say, the Democrats wish to use either or, just as long it's a Democrdast that wins.

 

asked and answered

 

Once again, newsflash. We know this.

The founding fathers implemented the EC at the time, because it was a necessity. It is outdated and obsolete today, and has led to a president serving in office, against the express will of the American people.

 

Right. There aren't 38 states that will ratify that crap.

 

strawman

 

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Now look here. I'm going to say right now that I'm not attributing anything to you or saying anything you said. Hence, no strawman possibility.

There aren't 38 states that will ratify that crap.

 

Then go about actually proving how the electoral college is outdated, obsolete, and simply unnecessary. Demonstrate how such is truly the case, do not simply claim it to be the case and expect it to be taken as such.

 

because you like to make up **** and attribute it to others. When you do that, it's called a strawman. I will call you on it every time you do it to me.

 

I have.

this is about the 20th thread on this issue and it's been discussed ad nauseam

 

It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment.

 

nobody suggested it doesn't. hence, strawman

 

lol, my statement of how the constitution works is a strawman. too ****ing funny.

 

In response to the post you quoted? yes it is. That's why it was pointed out.

 

By the way, did you know that it takes 38 states to ratify an amendment?

 

strawman

 

Me: "By the way, did you know that it takes 38 states to ratify an amendment?"

You:

How is citing the constitution a strawman?

 

He declares anything that is not 100% in conformance with his viewpoint as a 'strawman". I'm not even sure if he knows what a "strawman" is.