Getting rid of the Electoral College

YDB95 writes: "First of all, Reagan was as racist as he was dumb, so you might want to find another poster boy for your cause on this one."

Liberals might want to think that. After all, Reagan kicked their asses with back-to-back landslide election wins, making childish name-calling certainly understandable. In 1980, Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a lopsided 489-49 electoral college blow-out, and then four year's later he smashed Carter's Vice President (Walter Mondale) with a 49-state lopsided drubbing, winning the electoral vote by an all-time record 525-to-13 margin!

"Secondly, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that photo-ID laws are necessary"

That's EXACTLY what people cheating at election time would want to say. And then they'd claim that it's somehow RACIST to expect minority voters to own photo-ID's. How can ANYBODY claim that minority voters can't get photo-ID's, when those same minority voters need photo-ID's to fly on a plane or purchase a case of beer?

No, they can easily get photo-ID's, but the Democratic Party BENEFITS when people cheat at the polls, which is why liberals do NOT want voter-photo-ID laws passed - EVER! Also, illegal immigrants would have a tougher time voting in states requiring a photo-ID, and Democrat candidates NEED illegal votes to win!

Every corrupt, fraudulent precinct in the United States is run by Democrats! In south Texas, where Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off, it was corrupt Democrat counties that added thousands of votes to his total. In Cook County, Illinois (another Democratic Party stronghold), Chicago's mayor Daley used to splash water on ballot boxes so that he could report that "the ballots need to dry before they can be counted," so that he'd know exactly how many votes would be needed to achieve victory after the downstate tallies were reported. And then there's the infamous "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, it's another corrupt Democratic Party stronghold!)

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "First of all, Reagan was as racist as he was dumb, so you might want to find another poster boy for your cause on this one."

Liberals might want to think that. After all, Reagan kicked their asses with back-to-back landslide election wins, making childish name-calling certainly understandable. In 1980, Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a lopsided 489-49 electoral college blow-out, and then four year's later he smashed Carter's Vice President (Walter Mondale) with a 49-state lopsided drubbing, winning the electoral vote by an all-time record 525-to-13 margin!

Click to expand...

Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way.

Dumpington said:

"Secondly, there is literally no evidence whatsoever that photo-ID laws are necessary"

That's EXACTLY what people cheating at election time would want to say. And then they'd claim that it's somehow RACIST to expect minority voters to own photo-ID's. How can ANYBODY claim that minority voters can't get photo-ID's, when those same minority voters need photo-ID's to fly on a plane or purchase a case of beer?

Click to expand...

Because they don't need photo IDs to purchase beer unless they look under 21. Did you miss the part where I said "elderly"? They also skew poor, which means they don't often fly anywhere.

And it absolutely IS racist if the "solution" you prescribe affects minority voters disproportionately, which this does. Not to mention it's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Dumpington said:

Also, illegal immigrants would have a tougher time voting in states requiring a photo-ID, and Democrat candidates NEED illegal votes to win!

Click to expand...

Nope, not racist at all here, nosiree.

Dumpington said:

Every corrupt, fraudulent precinct in the United States is run by Democrats! In south Texas, where Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off, it was corrupt Democrat counties that added thousands of votes to his total. In Cook County, Illinois (another Democratic Party stronghold), Chicago's mayor Daley used to splash water on ballot boxes so that he could report that "the ballots need to dry before they can be counted," so that he'd know exactly how many votes would be needed to achieve victory after the downstate tallies were reported. And then there's the infamous "butterfly" ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida (yes, it's another corrupt Democratic Party stronghold!)

Click to expand...

First of all, the adjective is "Democratic", not "Democrat". Then again, you sometimes do use "Democratic," so you can't even keep your slurs straight. Might want to brush up on your editing there.

You will get no argument from me that LBJ stole the 1948 election, but in that era all counties in Texas were Democratic, and the evidence shows it was his own campaign doing the cheating, not the party apparatus (it was, after all, against another member of the party). In Illinois in 1960, there was also cheating on the Republican side in downstate, so no one really knows who got more votes there. (But contrary to what Rush told you, Kennedy would still have won by a few electoral votes without IL.)

Palm Beach? You really want to argue that it was Democratic trickery that caused thousands of Holocaust survivors to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan?! Wow. Just, wow.

I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice to Reagan's campaign stealing Carter's debate-prep book (that just might have a little something to do with why Reagan won, you know) to the almost routine occurrence of flyers appearing in black neighborhoods implying that you can go to jail just for showing up at the wrong polling place...but really, all I need here is one word: Russia.

Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...opular-vote-winner/ar-BBURzWY?ocid=spartanntp

YDB95 writes: "Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way."

You CHEAPEN the word "racism" when you haphazardly apply it to everyone with whom you disagree with politically!

Back in 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan. Was THIS a racist act? Do you seriously believe that Barack Obama was practicing racism when he spoke at the funeral of a former KKK "Exalted Cyclops?" This particular Exalted Cyclops had cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate one year earlier to pass the 2009 Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), so perhaps those extenuating circumstances made it less racist?

"Because they don't need photo IDs to purchase beer unless they look under 21."

I look over 21 - WAY over twenty-one - and yet I still get asked to show my drivers' license on occasion when purchasing alcohol! And do you know what I do? I SHOW THEM MY LICENSE! For somebody to claim that I'm too stupid to acquire a photo-ID is the absolute heighth of absurdity! And yet, that's what the Democratic Party does on a regular basis in the hopes of allowing non-citizens to continue casting ballots for their candidates!

" I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice..."

Seriously? That was the MONDALE campaign going after Gary Hart, and Walter Mondale was a former DEMOCRAT vice president - or, as YOU might call him, a "DEMOCRATIC!" Every single crooked, corrupt county & precinct in the United States right now is a noted Democratic Party stronghold! I could also add that every high-crime precinct in the U.S. votes heavily Democrat, as well!

KeithD points out: "Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this."

This is true, Keith - and all eleven of those states (plus Colorado) voted for Hillary in 2016!

The Democratic Party KNOWS full well that it will never have the power to rid itself of the Electoral College, and so getting states to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner is their way of hopefully getting around it. The problem is that Republican states are refusing to play along.

In November of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote against George W. Bush, but Bush won the Electoral Vote and became president. Let's pretend that Colorado (and these other eleven states) had passed their legislation then. Four years later (2004), Bush ran for re-election, and added 11,577,160 votes over what he'd won in November of 2000, and he defeated John Kerry by over three-million votes nationwide, winning the electoral vote, 286-251. But, if you suddenly give Bush California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, & Massachusetts, suddenly he's got an electoral college landslide of 410-127, despite those five-states all supporting John Kerry! What's the point of this exercise? To make John Kerry look like a bigger loser than he actually was?

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "Which only goes to show racism still sold very, very well less than a generation after the Civil Rights Act. Nothing you say here contradicts my point in any way."

You CHEAPEN the word "racism" when you haphazardly apply it to everyone with whom you disagree with politically!

Click to expand...

I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan, who made the term "welfare queen" famous and who kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi - a town famous for one thing and one thing only: the murder of three civil rights activists in 1964 - and also threw in "I believe in states' rights" (the ultimate racist dogwhistle) to that speech. Not to mention that he opposed sanctions against South Africa, supported "colorblind" social programs that devastated already-hurting inner cities...I could go on but you get the idea.

Dumpington said:

Back in 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan. Was THIS a racist act? Do you seriously believe that Barack Obama was practicing racism when he spoke at the funeral of a former KKK "Exalted Cyclops?" This particular Exalted Cyclops had cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate one year earlier to pass the 2009 Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), so perhaps those extenuating circumstances made it less racist?

Click to expand...

Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past, and had also become a dependable vote FOR civil rights in the Senate, no, I don't think it was a racist act. There's that pesky context again!

Dumpington said:

I look over 21 - WAY over twenty-one - and yet I still get asked to show my drivers' license on occasion when purchasing alcohol! And do you know what I do? I SHOW THEM MY LICENSE! For somebody to claim that I'm too stupid to acquire a photo-ID is the absolute heighth of absurdity! And yet, that's what the Democratic Party does on a regular basis in the hopes of allowing non-citizens to continue casting ballots for their candidates!

Click to expand...

And if you didn't have your license with you? You probably just wouldn't get the beer. Not exactly the end of the world. Disenfranchisement is a bit more serious than that. I suppose you consider it sheer coincidence that some of the states that are pushing these laws have also closed the DMV offices in predominantly black counties, thus making it even harder for those who don't already have a license to get one?

Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend.

Dumpington said:

" I could give you a laundry list of Republican dirty tricks, everything from framing Gary Hart with Donna Rice..."

Seriously? That was the MONDALE campaign going after Gary Hart, and Walter Mondale was a former DEMOCRAT vice president - or, as YOU might call him, a "DEMOCRATIC!"

Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha...I corrected your use of "Democrat" as an adjective and you respond by using "Democratic" as a noun - congratulations, you're the first person EVER to think of that one! Will you be here all week? Should I try the veal?

And no, it was Lee Atwater, the notorious Republican mudslinger, who engineered the entire thing with Donna Rice. It was in the news recently. Also, that happened in 1988, when Walter Mondale wasn't running for anything.

Dumpington said:

Every single crooked, corrupt county & precinct in the United States right now is a noted Democratic Party stronghold!

Click to expand...

That's twice you've said that, without backing it up with anything but attitude.

Dumpington said:

I could also add that every high-crime precinct in the U.S. votes heavily Democrat, as well!

Click to expand...

First of all, that's not true. Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis - you're just not talking about as many people, but the percentages are there. But even if you were right, it makes perfect sense that the parts of the country that are in most dire need of assistance are going to vote for the party that believes in providing a helping hand and a safety net. What's wrong with that?

Dumpington said:

KeithD points out: "Here's a wrinkle on the Electoral College. Colorado has just voted that its electoral votes in a presidential election will go to whoever wins the national popular vote. Eleven other states have already passed this."

This is true, Keith - and all eleven of those states (plus Colorado) voted for Hillary in 2016!

The Democratic Party KNOWS full well that it will never have the power to rid itself of the Electoral College, and so getting states to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner is their way of hopefully getting around it. The problem is that Republican states are refusing to play along.

In November of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote against George W. Bush, but Bush won the Electoral Vote and became president. Let's pretend that Colorado (and these other eleven states) had passed their legislation then. Four years later (2004), Bush ran for re-election, and added 11,577,160 votes over what he'd won in November of 2000, and he defeated John Kerry by over three-million votes nationwide, winning the electoral vote, 286-251. But, if you suddenly give Bush California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, & Massachusetts, suddenly he's got an electoral college landslide of 410-127, despite those five-states all supporting John Kerry! What's the point of this exercise? To make John Kerry look like a bigger loser than he actually was?

Click to expand...

Here's what you're missing, Dumpington: that law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college have ratified it. In other words, if those particular states had passed the law between 2000 and 2004, the five states you mentioned would still have voted for Kerry because the law wouldn't apply.

Not to mention that if the law were effective in 2000, Bush would have lost even if he'd stolen Florida.

We got a Federalist system where Washington is sovereign and all 50 states are sovereign. Bacl in 1787 the Founders couldn't agree about who could vote. So they decided to let each state decide who their voters are but voters don't pick the winners, electors pick the winners. In 1070 19 year olds voted in Georgia, in Florida you hadda be 21., some states wanna let 16 year olds vote.

FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:

We got a Federalist system where Washington is sovereign and all 50 states are sovereign. Bacl in 1787 the Founders couldn't agree about who could vote. So they decided to let each state decide who their voters are but voters don't pick the winners, electors pick the winners. In 1070 19 year olds voted in Georgia, in Florida you hadda be 21., some states wanna let 16 year olds vote.

Click to expand...

You're talking to a bunch of flaming socialist who fucking hate everything about the USA including its founding and structure.

Especially KeithD....arguably the most anti-American, USA hating, authoritarian communist stain on literotica since the departure of KO.

BotanyBoy said:

You're talking to a bunch of flaming socialist who fucking hate everything about the USA including its founding and structure.

Especially KeithD....arguably the most anti-American, USA hating, authoritarian communist stain on literotica since the departure of KO.

Click to expand...

And they'll never get rid of the electoral college cuz they got no PLAN B

FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:

And they'll never get rid of the electoral college cuz they got no PLAN B

Click to expand...

They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states

YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)

"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?

"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification? They need to suck-it-up and support voter-ID laws to keep our elections honest!

" Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis"

Those few parts of the rural south with high crime rates are ALL Democratic Party strongholds! And those parts of St. Louis & Detroit with lower crime rates include the more Republican-leaning precincts. If the criminals run the show, the Democrats dominate the neighborhood!

BotanyBoy writes: "They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states"

And the Democrats know it. It's why they hate the Electoral College, the First & Second Amendments, and the entire U.S. Constitution! Many of today's Democrats would rather our nation looked more like Venezuela or Cuba.

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)

Click to expand...

I repeat, that only goes to show how well dogwhistle racism was selling in the 1980s. Not exactly a secret. Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing. And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning. From 1968 through 1988 - six elections in a row - they all voted Republican every time except for Connecticut in 1968. In no way does anything you've said up there prove - or even suggest - that Reagan wasn't a racist.

Dumpington said:

"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?

Click to expand...

Since he has spent his career continuing to perpetuate his racist past rather than atoning for it, no. Besides, what makes you think an apology tour is on the way?

Dumpington said:

"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification?

Click to expand...

Okay, this is crucial. You say "fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification" as if that's a dangerous new idea, but here's the thing: That is how it has always been done, and there is no evidence of anyone abusing that in more than tiny numbers. The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000. That, I believe, is out of over a billion votes that have been cast in all the elections since then. Now, if you have evidence that there are more cases out there that just aren't being caught, that deserves attention.

But there is no such evidence. What there IS evidence of is that the real goal is to curtail voting among minority groups. See here for one such example, noting that the intent was to target African-American voters with "almost surgical precision".

Just to confuse the Trumpettes, I'll note that I'm in favor of requiring photo ID of all voters at the polls. I've been a voting precinct chief and know how helpful that is and how easily it is to claim you're the voter without having that proof. What I would do is make registrars ensure that everyone registered had a photo ID--get them one if they can't manage that themselves. Design voter cards so they have a photo ID and provide them at the registrar's office.

When I voted at the polls in California, I always had to have picture ID, plus we had to verify our address with the ID and then sign our names so that, if necessary, the signature could be checked with the original application to register to vote. When I moved to Arizona, I did the mail-in ballot. One of the reasons that it takes so long to count ballots in Arizona is that they compare the signature on the mail-in ballot with the original registration form. The big problem I see is that an address is required for a registration card. Not everyone has an address recognized by the post office.

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "I don't apply it to everyone with whom I disagree politically. I do apply it to Ronald Reagan..."

The virulently racist state of Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan... TWICE! Other right-wing racist states that went for Reagan in both 1980 & again in 1984: Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey (and thirty-five OTHER racist states!)

"Since Sen. Byrd had literally spent the previous half-century apologizing for his racist past..."

So David Duke can STILL count on receiving your vote, assuming he begins his apology-tour sometime soon?

"Voting is a bit more serious than buying beer, my friend."

EXACTLY RIGHT! Voting is so much more important than buying beer! So WHY are modern Democrats fine with people showing up at the polls without bringing proper identification? They need to suck-it-up and support voter-ID laws to keep our elections honest!

" Parts of the rural South that are 80% Republican have crime rates to rival Detroit or St. Louis"

Those few parts of the rural south with high crime rates are ALL Democratic Party strongholds! And those parts of St. Louis & Detroit with lower crime rates include the more Republican-leaning precincts. If the criminals run the show, the Democrats dominate the neighborhood!

BotanyBoy writes: "They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states"

And the Democrats know it. It's why they hate the Electoral College, the First & Second Amendments, and the entire U.S. Constitution! Many of today's Democrats would rather our nation looked more like Venezuela or Cuba.

Click to expand...

Voting is a right, not a law. And it is not really serious except maybe on the local level. Voter I D should have started years ago. Minorities complain about not being able to go get a I D. If that were so, how do they get to the polls to vote?! THEY COMPLAIN BECAUSE WITH I D, THEY CAN VOTE ONLY ONCE, THE DUMMIES.
IN NATIONAL VOTING, RESULTS HAVE BEEN DECIDED LONG BEFORE THE WEST COAST HAS FINISHED VOTING! WHY BOTHER? ITS A JOKE!!

tmock said:

THEY COMPLAIN BECAUSE WITH I D, THEY CAN VOTE ONLY ONCE, THE DUMMIES.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. I worked the polls for several years, and obviously never heard this stupid complaint being made. The only intentional double voting attempts I encountered were by people who managed to get--or remain--registered in more than one district. And from the context of your post, I don't think you want to hear what sorts of people I encountered trying to get away with that.

YDB95 writes: "Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing."

Okay, I believe we're in agreement here that Massachusetts is a hotbed of racism! I think we can ALSO agree that John F. Kennedy only won the presidency in 1960 by sweeping the segregationist states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, & Arkansas (along with winning five of Alabama's 11 electoral votes), altogether worth a combined 81 electoral votes!

"And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning."

I also find it interesting that the racist Ku Kux Klan was ONLY politically powerful in the American south back in those days when the Democratic Party thoroughly dominated that region of our nation. In 1980 & '84, after Ronald Reagan swept the south for the Republicans, the KKK ceased to exist as a credible political force in that entire region, and is all-but-extinct there today. In 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of the last KKK officer to hold a U.S. Senate seat!

"The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000."

Okay, so Hillary Clinton gets 64,855 FEWER popular votes in 2016 than Barack Obama received in 2012 - but in the state of California she receives 899,507 MORE popular votes than Barack '12? If California wasn't allowing illegals to vote, what would have been the actual total there?

KeithD writes: "I'm in favor of requiring photo ID of all voters at the polls."

Good for you, Keith! So what if Hillary receives 900-thousand fewer votes in the Golden State in 2016? At least it would be an HONEST total!

tmock writes: "Voter I D should have started years ago. Minorities complain about not being able to go get a I D. If that were so, how do they get to the polls to vote?!

Exactly right, tmock! The Democratic Party opposes voter photo-ID laws for the simple reason that it will cost them the votes of people who shouldn't be casting ballots in the first place! Democrat candidates have long benefitted from non-citizens voting, along with people voting repeatedly at different polling stations (where they're not required to show an ID!) To make the claim that minorities are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Ronald Reagan once called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!" But that is what your modern Democratic Party continues clinging to!

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "Since you've singled out Massachusetts, it's worth remembering there was tremendous racial tension in Boston in that era, mostly over busing."

Okay, I believe we're in agreement here that Massachusetts is a hotbed of racism!

Click to expand...

There's racism in all fifty states, Dumpington, and in every country on earth for that matter. There was in 1980, there is now. In no way was I singling out Massachusetts in particular - after all, you were the one who brought it up in the first place. Of course, if you consider Massachusetts a "hotbed of racism", I would certainly agree that explains why it voted twice for Reagan.

Dumpington said:

I think we can ALSO agree that John F. Kennedy only won the presidency in 1960 by sweeping the segregationist states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, & Arkansas (along with winning five of Alabama's 11 electoral votes), altogether worth a combined 81 electoral votes!

Click to expand...

It is true that he carried the states you listed. You're cherrypicking, but you're not wrong. Now, if you want to argue that JFK won those states because he supported segregation, well, that simply isn't true. Remember - okay, you probably don't know this, but you do now - he spoke out in support of Martin Luther King while he (MLK that is) was in jail just before the election, a move that has been credited with clinching his narrow win.

It's also worth noting which were the only states that did NOT vote Democratic four years later, in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights Act.

Dumpington said:

"And while all the other states you mentioned are reliably blue today - 35 years later - in 1984 they were all Republican-leaning."

I also find it interesting that the racist Ku Kux Klan was ONLY politically powerful in the American south back in those days when the Democratic Party thoroughly dominated that region of our nation. In 1980 & '84, after Ronald Reagan swept the south for the Republicans, the KKK ceased to exist as a credible political force in that entire region, and is all-but-extinct there today.

Click to expand...

Nope. Reagan wasn't the first Republican to sweep the South; Nixon was, a decade earlier. And the Klan was a spent force politically decades before that.

You do, however, touch on a valid point here: the Dems started losing their grip on the South at exactly the time they turned their backs on their racist past and embraced civil rights, in 1964. Strom Thurmond famously switched parties that year, for example.

Dumpington said:

In 2010, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of the last KKK officer to hold a U.S. Senate seat!

Click to expand...

Yes, and in 1985, Ronald Reagan went to Germany to honor the Nazis by visiting Bitburg. Cherrypicking again - hey, two can play at that game.

Dumpington said:

"The highest figure I could find for confirmed cases of fraudulent voting was 31 cases since 2000."

Okay, so Hillary Clinton gets 64,855 FEWER popular votes in 2016 than Barack Obama received in 2012 - but in the state of California she receives 899,507 MORE popular votes than Barack '12? If California wasn't allowing illegals to vote, what would have been the actual total there?

Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that Clinton improving on Obama's vote in one state proves she was getting illegal votes? Occam's razor, my friend: she improved on Obama in California because a lot of suburban Republicans voted for her - a well documented phenomenon nationwide, and especially in California, where she became the first Democrat to carry Orange County for president since 1936.

Dumpington said:

Exactly right, tmock! The Democratic Party opposes voter photo-ID laws for the simple reason that it will cost them the votes of people who shouldn't be casting ballots in the first place! Democrat candidates have long benefitted from non-citizens voting, along with people voting repeatedly at different polling stations (where they're not required to show an ID!) To make the claim that minorities are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Ronald Reagan once called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!" But that is what your modern Democratic Party continues clinging to!

Click to expand...

Okay, I've already defeated your silly point about "proof" of widespread voting by illegal immigrants. But since that's twice now you've served up that Reagan quote (which, incidentally, was really coined by a speechwriter for George W. Bush years after Reagan's term had ended), I might as well address that too. It's nothing but a justification for rolling back affirmative action, a way of rationalizing policies that fail to account for the real effects of 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow and the cold, hard truth that one generation of remedy has not undone them. Providing for everyone's right to vote has NOTHING to do with thinking they're stupid - and everything to do with accounting for the reality that the policies you're pushing for are designed specifically to disenfranchise minority voters because they mostly vote against your party. Nothing more, and unfortunately nothing less.

And I guess I could comment on how absolutely appropriate it is that you're lauding Reagan for someone else's words - a remarkably eloquent take on the right's reverence for him these days. But that's beside the point.

BotanyBoy said:

They'll never get rid of the EC because you can't run an article 5 convention with just 9 states

Click to expand...

The Constitution could not have been ratified without it and the nation won't stand if it is removed by whatever means. Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.

Rightguide said:

Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.

Click to expand...

That's not only the exact opposite of how it would work, it's also what we actually DO have under the Electoral College.

Rightguide said:

The Constitution could not have been ratified without it and the nation won't stand if it is removed by whatever means. Only three or four states will decide who is President. Candidates wouldn't even visit smaller states while trying to garner the major population centers. The vast heartland of America would have no voice in Presidential elections.

Click to expand...

Given the 'vast heartland's" record of performance, that might not be bad.

KeithD said:

Just to confuse the Trumpettes, I'll note that I'm in favor of requiring photo ID of all voters at the polls. I've been a voting precinct chief and know how helpful that is and how easily it is to claim you're the voter without having that proof. What I would do is make registrars ensure that everyone registered had a photo ID--get them one if they can't manage that themselves. Design voter cards so they have a photo ID and provide them at the registrar's office.

Click to expand...

I totally agree!

YDB95 writes: "There's racism in all fifty states, Dumpington, and in every country on earth for that matter."

Do you know a country that's NOT racist? That would be Trump's America! Millions of people from black & brown countries worldwide want to come live in Trump's America, and they are trying to move here, both legally AND illegally! Meanwhile, NOBODY wants to go live in virulently racist, oppressive/socialist nations (like Cuba or Venezuela!)

"Remember - okay, you probably don't know this, but you do now - he spoke out in support of Martin Luther King"

I already knew that. You probably don't know this, but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered REPUBLICAN!

"...the Dems started losing their grip on the South at exactly the time they turned their backs on their racist past and embraced civil rights, in 1964."

That's all true, just as it's also true that the Ku Kux Klan ceased being politically powerful in the American south after the Democratic Party lost its stranglehold on that region of our country! Now that the G.O.P. dominates the south, the KKK has all-but-ceased to exist down here!

"Yes, and in 1985, Ronald Reagan went to Germany to honor the Nazis by visiting Bitburg."

Seriously? "Honoring the Nazis?" President Reagan visited a cemetery holding German war dead. Not every German soldier was a Nazi war criminal! But U.S. Senator Robert Byrd REALLY WAS a former KKK officer, and President Obama REALLY DID eulogize at his 2010 funeral!

YDB95 writes: "Are you seriously arguing that Clinton improving on Obama's vote in one state proves she was getting illegal votes?"

65,918,507 - the total popular votes won by Barack Obama nationwide in 2012
65,853,652 - the total popular votes won by Hillary Clinton nationwide in 2016
- 64,855 - this is how many FEWER votes Hillary got nationwide than Obama received four-years earlier.

7,854,285 - Barack Obama's California vote total in 2012
8,753,792 - Hillary Clinton's California vote total in 2016
+ 899,507 - this is how many MORE votes Hillary received in California than Obama got there four years earlier.

Again, nationwide Mrs. Clinton won an average of over a thousand FEWER votes-per-state in 2016 than Barack Obama won four years earlier in 2012 - EXCEPT in California, where she exceeded Barack's total by nearly 900-thousand votes!

Subtract California's inflated totals, and Mrs. Clinton won an astounding 965,362 FEWER popular votes nationwide than President Obama received four years earlier!

Over 10,000,000 Americans died between 2012 and 2016.

Dumpington said:

Do you know a country that's NOT racist? That would be Trump's America! Millions of people from black & brown countries worldwide want to come live in Trump's America, and they are trying to move here, both legally AND illegally! Meanwhile, NOBODY wants to go live in virulently racist, oppressive/socialist nations (like Cuba or Venezuela!)

Click to expand...

They want to come to America, not to "Trump's America". And in no way does that prove - or even suggest - that there's no racism in America. But I don't know why I'm even responding to this given the literally thousands of examples Trump has provided of his racism - and his willingness to pander to other people's racism - literally from the moment he declared his candidacy. And even before that, when he was a birther.

Dumpington said:

"Remember - okay, you probably don't know this, but you do now - he spoke out in support of Martin Luther King"

I already knew that. You probably don't know this, but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered REPUBLICAN!

Click to expand...

I'd really like to know where you're getting this. I just googled it out of morbid curiosity, and even Newsmax - the most right wing 'news' source I know - says (correctly, by the way) MLK's party registration is unknown, and indeed unknowable. Georgia didn't register voters by party in his era.

Oh, and two quotes from the man himself that might interest you:
“I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

...and...

“I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”

Dumpington said:

"...the Dems started losing their grip on the South at exactly the time they turned their backs on their racist past and embraced civil rights, in 1964."

That's all true, just as it's also true that the Ku Kux Klan ceased being politically powerful in the American south after the Democratic Party lost its stranglehold on that region of our country! Now that the G.O.P. dominates the south, the KKK has all-but-ceased to exist down here!

Click to expand...

"John Milton wrote 'Paradise Lost'. Then his wife died and he wrote 'Paradise Regained'." THAT is the logic you're using here. And as a matter of fact, membership in white supremacist groups - including but not limited to the KKK - has been on the upswing since Obama was elected.

Dumpington said:

"Yes, and in 1985, Ronald Reagan went to Germany to honor the Nazis by visiting Bitburg."

Seriously? "Honoring the Nazis?" President Reagan visited a cemetery holding German war dead. Not every German soldier was a Nazi war criminal! But U.S. Senator Robert Byrd REALLY WAS a former KKK officer, and President Obama REALLY DID eulogize at his 2010 funeral!

Click to expand...

If your point is that I'm oversimplifying the matter, well, you're right. But that's the whole point. I was just doing what you were doing (albeit a much milder case thereof).

Dumpington said:

YDB95 writes: "Are you seriously arguing that Clinton improving on Obama's vote in one state proves she was getting illegal votes?"

65,918,507 - the total popular votes won by Barack Obama nationwide in 2012
65,853,652 - the total popular votes won by Hillary Clinton nationwide in 2016
- 64,855 - this is how many FEWER votes Hillary got nationwide than Obama received four-years earlier.

7,854,285 - Barack Obama's California vote total in 2012
8,753,792 - Hillary Clinton's California vote total in 2016
+ 899,507 - this is how many MORE votes Hillary received in California than Obama got there four years earlier.

Again, nationwide Mrs. Clinton won an average of over a thousand FEWER votes-per-state in 2016 than Barack Obama won four years earlier in 2012 - EXCEPT in California, where she exceeded Barack's total by nearly 900-thousand votes!

Subtract California's inflated totals, and Mrs. Clinton won an astounding 965,362 FEWER popular votes nationwide than President Obama received four years earlier!

Click to expand...

That proves absolutely nothing vis a vis illegal voting. Think about it: if the Dems WERE going to cheat like that, why on earth would they do it in a state where they already regularly win by landslides. And as I said before, there's a perfectly legitimate explanation for why her total increased in California: she did better than Dems usually do in certain Republican suburbs where voters were turned off by Trump's open racism. Which you obviously are not.