Getting rid of the Electoral College

[Dumpington]

It's amazing how many states Hillary Clinton won ONLY because of one city in that particular state that went overwhelmingly Democrat.

For example, Hillary won Colorado's nine electoral votes by defeating Trump with 48.16% of the vote statewide. Subtract JUST Denver County from Mrs. Clinton's total, and Trump carries Colorado by 45,475 votes, defeating the Democrat candidate in 42 of the Centennial State's 64 counties.

Mrs. Clinton won Nevada's 6-electoral votes by winning in only TWO of that state's seventeen counties. Subtract Hillary's 82,170 plurality in Las Vegas's Clark County, and the Silver State goes to Donald Trump by 54,968 votes!

And then there's Minnesota. Mrs. Clinton received a majority of the votes in only nine of Minnesota's 87-counties! Subtract her 237,518 plurality in just ONE COUNTY: Minneapolis's Hennepin County, and Trump carries the North Star state by 192,925 votes!

 

[icanhelp1]

It's amazing how many states Hillary Clinton won ONLY because of one city in that particular state that went overwhelmingly Democrat.

For example, Hillary won Colorado's nine electoral votes by defeating Trump with 48.16% of the vote statewide. Subtract JUST Denver County from Mrs. Clinton's total, and Trump carries Colorado by 45,475 votes, defeating the Democrat candidate in 42 of the Centennial State's 64 counties.

Mrs. Clinton won Nevada's 6-electoral votes by winning in only TWO of that state's seventeen counties. Subtract Hillary's 82,170 plurality in Las Vegas's Clark County, and the Silver State goes to Donald Trump by 54,968 votes!

And then there's Minnesota. Mrs. Clinton received a majority of the votes in only nine of Minnesota's 87-counties! Subtract her 237,518 plurality in just ONE COUNTY: Minneapolis's Hennepin County, and Trump carries the North Star state by 192,925 votes!

I've carefully followed your narratives and I find you're very knowledgeable of the subject matter. Hilary won states based on high population district pushing her over the line in some states. It's seems to me you're validating she wins the populous vote and abolishing the electoral college gives the dems the advantage. Isn't that what the dems are arguing. I'd like to know why it is that the large population centers glow blue for the most part. Is it because the urban centers have a higher concentration of people more dependent on government programs which dems push. Isn't that there underlying strategy when it come illegal migrants.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Which has nothing to do with how many EVs they might get next time."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that whomever wins the 2020 Democratic Party's presidential nomination does even WORSE in the electoral college than Mrs. Clinton did in 2016. The Dems are NOT going to run a strong candidate against Trump (as they don't have any),

Well, they certainly don't have any by your definition. Out of morbid curiosity, who would be a strong Democratic candidate by your definition? My best guess is you're going to say someone who votes like a Republican most of the time, but hey, go ahead and answer for yourself.

You're going to include LBJ in your list just so that you can FINALLY dredge-up a Democrat presidential landslide? Of course, that 1964 election also took place less than a year after the assassination of JFK, so Republican Barry Goldwater never really stood a chance. You DO realize, of course, that Lyndon's own party DEEPLY HATED him by 1968, when he accepted the fact that he might not even win re-nomination, and so he dropped-out entirely! And by 1972 they completely IGNORED him at his own party's convention that nominated far-left Senator George McGovern!

Then you do understand that every election has unique circumstances that mean you really can't judge any of the others by its standards. Good, but then that also means your constant harping on the Dems losing votes in the past couple of elections doesn't really mean anything - especially not if you're going to ignore the reality that the Republicans have lost the popular vote in all but one of the past six elections (or, worse, explain it away with baseless nonsense about illegal immigrants).

And by the way, while sympathy for the Dems after the JFK assassination played a role, there was nothing inevitable about Goldwater being crushed like he was. That happened because he ran an extreme right wing, racist campaign that scared and disgusted a lot of people who usually voted Republican. But you know who did vote for him? The Deep South. That is why the South flipped to the Republicans - because they picked up the banner of racism when the Democrats rejected it.

"if you think the Dems are stuffing the rolls with illegal voters, why would they do it in a state where they're already prohibitive favorites?"

Isn't it obvious? The Democratic Party runs California, controlling both the Governor's office & the state legislature! They've passed laws in that state allowing illegals to acquire drivers' licenses, and they then passed other laws allowing anybody with a drivers' license to vote on election day without registering first!

First of all, a number of other states - including ruby red ones like Utah - allow for illegals to get driver's licenses. Secondly, the incident you appear to be referring to here did not result in any illegals voting. See here for more info.

And then they opened up their state's treasury to give illegals food stamps, housing, free health care, and even free educations in their university system, and all they ask in return is their VOTES!

Nope. The only benefit illegals might sometimes get is emergency healthcare. I, for one, think that's perfectly reasonable. They are human beings, after all.

The Democratic Party would LOVE to do all of this in Texas, as well, but that state remains in Republican hands, which makes it far more difficult for the Democratic Party to harness the political support of those people who are in that state illegally! In fact, it is for this very reason that so many California businesses have re-located to the Lone Star State in recent years, as they move to escape the increasingly higher taxes that California must impose upon businesses & individuals so that they can continue distributing more taxpayer-funded freebies to illegals!

Or maybe - just maybe - the taxes are going to fund an infrastructure to support CA's huge population, which isn't cheap. Just maybe.

"Yes, 35 years ago. Which has absolutely nothing to do with how it votes now."

Less than a year after Barack Obama's inauguration as president, the BLUE state of Massachusetts held a special U.S. Senate election for the seat vacated by "the Lion of the Senate," Edward Kennedy, who had passed away in August of 2009, and President Obama even flew Air Force One up to Boston to campaign for his party's heavily-favored candidate, Martha Coakley. This wasn't like Doug Jones in Alabama, where the media was daily trashing his opponent. No, Martha Coakley had the media's full support, along with that of the still-popular first-ever black president. But the Democrats LOST, and Republican Scott Brown was elected instead. Yes, you can blame it all on the enormous unpopularity of ObamaCare if you so choose, but it happened!

Since we've got that other thread where you're harping on the likelihood of Doug Jones losing in 2020, surely you know what happened to Scott Brown in 2012, yes? (And incidentally, Martha Coakley was such complete scum that even I would have voted for Brown - in 2009, that is. That's why she lost.)

"And outside of Provo and the rural counties, Utah is already blue. So what?

Now you're just being silly. NOWHERE is Utah BLUE, YDB95!

There are 29-counties in that state. Hillary won TWO of them in 2016 (winning a paltry 27.17% of Utah's popular vote!) Going back four-years earlier, in 2012, Barack Obama won ZERO counties in Utah (along with 24.67% of that state's popular vote!) In '08, Barack carried three Utah counties (and a hefty 34.17% of the popular vote!) NOWHERE can Utah be considered a Democratic Party state!

Well, Salt Lake City is fairly blue. But the point is, in all fifty states, most rural areas are red and most urban areas are blue. There are very few exceptions. So to your earlier point about Illinois about Chicago, 1) that's perfectly normal, and 2) so what? Illinois hasn't gone red for president since 1988 and yes, that's because of Chicago - but it's going to stay that way.

Now about that BLUE STATE of Illinois...

Hillary Clinton was BORN in Illinois - it's her HOME STATE - and in 2016 she won 55.24% of the popular vote there, with Donald Trump receiving only 38.36%, putting Illinois' 20 electoral votes in the Clinton column!

The state of Illinois is made up of 102 counties. Mrs. Clinton won in TWELVE of those counties, with New Yorker Donald Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining NINETY counties. Chicago's notoriously corrupt Cook County alone gave the former First Lady a solid majority of 1,158,659 votes in her favor. Subtract Cook County, and Trump carries the state of Illinois by 213,945 votes!

And, while we're looking at what those huge cities can do to a state's electoral votes, let's check-out liberal New York state, where Hillary served as a U.S. Senator! There are 62 counties in New York state. Mrs. Clinton won in SEVENTEEN of them, with Trump winning the majority of votes in the remaining forty-five. Hillary carried that state by a margin of 1,736,585 votes, but if you subtract those five counties representing New York City - Manhattan, Kings, Queens, the Bronx, & Westchester counties - Donald Trump suddenly has a 102,523 vote majority in New York state, winning that state's 29 electoral votes!

True but irrelevant. And I note that you harp on the fact that Clinton was born in Illinois even though she hasn't lived there since she was a teenager (and incidentally, she was a Republican then), and then bring up New York without mentioning that's where Trump has lived all his life. Not that that really matters, but it's noteworthy.

As to your point about how states vote outside the cities, again, that's a good argument against the electoral college. The vast differences within most states aren't reflected at all in the election results, when all but two states cast all their electoral votes for the statewide winner.

Oh, and by the way, Westchester County isn't part of New York City. The fifth one is Richmond county (Staten Island), which I think Trump carried.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, they certainly don't have any by your definition.

By anyone with a clue about the USA's definition too.

Ethno-socialism and radical eco-communist ideas aren't going to sell very well to the dumbfuckistanis, ....which teh (D)'s need to win the WH, despite how much the fucking hate them.

https://i.imgur.com/Vw4nVN4.jpg

The (D)'s learned NOTHING from 2016 and have doubled down on "fuck whitey we're going to take all your shit and redistribute it so everyone can have free everything!" harder than ever before.

Catering to the fringe left and alienating even more people than HRC did...a lot of (D)'s between social liberals and fence rider centrist have been pushed to the (R)'s lately for all the absolutely insane shit coming from the (D)'s lately.

Out of morbid curiosity, who would be a strong Democratic candidate by your definition? My best guess is you're going to say someone who votes like a Republican most of the time, but hey, go ahead and answer for yourself.

Considering the (R)'s are now the more liberal party....by a long shot, yea.

I think the (D)'s need to go grab a fucking history book and read up on what the fuck the USA is and how it came to be.

There are a few social liberals left...but they are being alienated as "alt right adjacent" and blacklisted to get primaried by the socialist faction of the DNC.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Since we've got that other thread where you're harping on the likelihood of Doug Jones losing in 2020, surely you know what happened to Scott Brown in 2012, yes? (And incidentally, Martha Coakley was such complete scum that even I would have voted for Brown - in 2009, that is. That's why she lost."

Exactly right! If Scott Brown failed to win re-election in Massachusetts, what chance does Doug Jones have in Alabama? Answer: NONE WHATSOEVER!

"Well, Salt Lake City is fairly blue."

Not blue enough! In Utah, Hillary won 27.17% of the vote! Only in Wyoming (21.88%) and West Virginia (26.18%) did she do WORSE than that!

"As to your point about how states vote outside the cities, again, that's a good argument against the electoral college."

Democrats FEAR rural America. They want the CITIES to control all of the political power in the U.S. The Electoral College spreads the power into every nook & cranny of our nation, and so the Dems are against it. Groups like Antifa are completely IGNORED in the American heartland!

 

[YDB95]

Democrats FEAR rural America. They want the CITIES to control all of the political power in the U.S. The Electoral College spreads the power into every nook & cranny of our nation, and so the Dems are against it. Groups like Antifa are completely IGNORED in the American heartland!

Exactly what makes you expect anyone to believe you know anything about what Democrats think or feel?

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 asks: "Exactly what makes you expect anyone to believe you know anything about what Democrats think or feel?"

This isn't exactly rocket science, YDB95!

Democrats want to WIN! They oppose the Electoral College because it gives (in their opinion) too much power to people living in the American heartland!

The Democratic Party ALSO opposes construction of a border wall, because such a thing keeps Mexican nationals from freely entering the U.S. where they will then be permitted to vote in Democrat-dominated states (like California)!

And yes, liberal Democrats are ALSO deeply opposed to voter photo-ID laws, as they make it more difficult for illegals to freely participate in American elections.

The weaker the Democratic Party gets, the MORE they will want major U.S. cities to decide exclusively how we are governed as a nation.

If you understand what motivates that party, you will better understand why I posted what I did.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 asks: "Exactly what makes you expect anyone to believe you know anything about what Democrats think or feel?"

This isn't exactly rocket science, YDB95!

Democrats want to WIN! They oppose the Electoral College because it gives (in their opinion) too much power to people living in the American heartland!

Or maybe - just maybe - because it's truer to the spirit of democracy to have the winner of the popular vote be the winner of the election.
And "too much power to people living in the American heartland" is a very interesting way of phrasing "it gives more clout to voters in small states than in large states."

The Democratic Party ALSO opposes construction of a border wall, because such a thing keeps Mexican nationals from freely entering the U.S. where they will then be permitted to vote in Democrat-dominated states (like California)!

You can say that all you like, but you still haven't produced a scintilla of evidence that any such thing has been happening. (That Clinton improved upon Obama's vote in California doesn't prove anything - except that Trump alienated a lot of usually-Republican voters in wealthy suburbs like CA's Orange County.)

And yes, liberal Democrats are ALSO deeply opposed to voter photo-ID laws, as they make it more difficult for illegals to freely participate in American elections.

No. We are deeply opposed to voter photo-ID laws because they're not necessary and they are clearly intended to suppress legitimate votes, not to stop illegal ones (incidentally, how hard do you think it is to get a fake ID?).

The weaker the Democratic Party gets, the MORE they will want major U.S. cities to decide exclusively how we are governed as a nation.

Exclusively no. Fairly yes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 asks: "Exactly what makes you expect anyone to believe you know anything about what Democrats think or feel?"

This isn't exactly rocket science, YDB95!

Democrats want to WIN! They oppose the Electoral College because it gives (in their opinion) too much power to people living in the American heartland!

The Democratic Party ALSO opposes construction of a border wall, because such a thing keeps Mexican nationals from freely entering the U.S. where they will then be permitted to vote in Democrat-dominated states (like California)!

And yes, liberal Democrats are ALSO deeply opposed to voter photo-ID laws, as they make it more difficult for illegals to freely participate in American elections.

The weaker the Democratic Party gets, the MORE they will want major U.S. cities to decide exclusively how we are governed as a nation.

If you understand what motivates that party, you will better understand why I posted what I did.

I agree with what you are saying, especially about illegal aliens voting: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/san-francisco-to-allow-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

I think this is what is sometimes called "the thin edge of the wedge." Or maybe "the camel's nose." How long do you think it will take to grant illegals full voting rights?

As for repealing the Electoral College: That would take a Constitutional amendment and, even if the Dems were able to collect enough votes in Congress, they would never be able to get 38 states to endorse it. Enough states would see it as a dilution of their clout and would vote against it.

This is strictly a prediction; there would be no easy way to prove it.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Or maybe - just maybe - because it's truer to the spirit of democracy to have the winner of the popular vote be the winner of the election."

Except that the United States has NEVER been a democracy - we're a REPUBLIC! A constitutional republic to be exact!

And EVERY single U.S. president from George Washington to Donald Trump has won the electoral vote!

"That Clinton improved upon Obama's vote in California doesn't prove anything"

For Barack to have done so poorly in California compared with Hillary says that perhaps he was rapidly wearing out his welcome in that particular state.

"We are deeply opposed to voter photo-ID laws because they're not necessary..."

So WHY are photo-ID's so necessary at liquor stores and at the airport, but NOT at the polls where we vote for our elected representatives?

Boxlicker101 writes: " How long do you think it will take to grant illegals full voting rights?"

The Democratic Party desperately NEEDS the votes of illegals if they are to win any future elections! And Mexican nationals will vote a straight Democrat-ticket in exchange for taxpayer-funded freebies!

Modern liberals are deeply upset with our U.S. Constitution. For one thing, they wish that it included more Islamic Sharia Law.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

I think one thing is pretty clear: if, at any point in the next twenty years or so, the Republicans were to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college, the electoral college would be gone in ten minutes.

There's no profound principle at play here; the status quo benefits one party, so that party defends the status quo.

 

[Dumpington]

RelentlessOnanism writes: "I think one thing is pretty clear: if, at any point in the next twenty years or so, the Republicans were to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college, the electoral college would be gone in ten minutes."

You're completely missing the point.

Republicans actually LIKE our U.S. Constitution - it's the modern Democratic Party that deeply DESPISES much of it!

Secondly, there's NO WAY for the Consitution to be changed unless BOTH parties both want it changed!

Or... if one of the parties has lost its political muscle in the aftermath of something like, say the U.S. Civil War, when the Democratic Party was seriously out-voted in both houses of congress!

That's how Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans got the 13th amendment passed in the mid-1960's, outlawing slavery!

And back then, the Democrats didn't know about declaring Sanctuary Cities to evade our nation's laws!

 

[YDB95]

RelentlessOnanism writes: "I think one thing is pretty clear: if, at any point in the next twenty years or so, the Republicans were to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college, the electoral college would be gone in ten minutes."

You're completely missing the point.

Republicans actually LIKE our U.S. Constitution - it's the modern Democratic Party that deeply DESPISES much of it!

Actually, we're pretty fond of the part of it that ensures the right to vote is sacrosanct. And I daresay quite a few Republicans in Congress couldn't even identify most of the amendments other than the Second.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Actually, we're pretty fond of the part of it that ensures the right to vote is sacrosanct."

Exactly right, YDB95!

Our right to vote is the KEY to the success of our republic, dating all the way back to George Washington's time!

And we need to PROTECT that right by making sure that only AMERICANS vote in American elections! And that means doing whatever it takes to protect the INTEGRITY of our elections!

To prevent voter fraud, we should at the very least do what liquor stores do to prevent non-adults from purchasing alcohol - wouldn't you agree?

 

[YDB95]

To prevent voter fraud, we should at the very least do what liquor stores do to prevent non-adults from purchasing alcohol - wouldn't you agree?

I would agree if 1) there were any evidence that we needed to do that, and 2) the record didn't show that the Republicans have consistently used this issue to try to prevent certain groups of Americans from voting because they don't like the way they vote. But there isn't, and it does.


By the way, your argument reminds me of a common refrain in the gun control debate, in which I'd be willing to bet you are staunchly opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on buying a gun.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "I would agree if 1) there were any evidence that we needed to do that..."

Kids under the age of 21 have been using fake ideas to purchase liquor since before the dawn of time, YDB95. I could argue that WHY bother demanding a photo-ID if there's no evidence that such requirements work? The difference is, one involves a relatively minor violation of the law to buy booze while the OTHER involves interfering with the workings of our American electoral system! I think that messing with the integrity of our elections is a much more SERIOUS offense!

"2) the record didn't show that the Republicans have consistently used this issue to try to prevent certain groups of Americans from voting because they don't like the way they vote. But there isn't, and it does."

The last group that OPENLY tried to prevent certain groups from voting in American elections were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS in the 100-years following the American Civil War! Those southern Democrats have NO MORE POWER in the south! For you to now claim that black Americans are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Reagan called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!"

"By the way, your argument reminds me of a common refrain in the gun control debate, in which I'd be willing to bet you are staunchly opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on buying a gun."

I don't believe that criminals should be allowed to have guns. But I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER wrong with law-abiding Americans owning & carrying firearms. I think that disarming law-abiding Americans is the heighth of folly. I also think that Vice President Joe Biden's idea of putting-up "Gun-Free Zone" signs at schools & at other public places was an act of incredible stupidity! I mean, since WHEN is a murderous killer ever going to be deterred by such gross silliness?

 

[YDB95]

Kids under the age of 21 have been using fake ideas to purchase liquor since before the dawn of time, YDB95.

Yes, and there is NO evidence that such widespread fakery has been going on with respect to voter fraud. That's the root of the issue here: it's a trumped-up claim with no basis in reality, designed to rally the troops for a racist and xenophobic cause whose real goal is to prevent certain disadvantaged groups from voting because they tend to vote Democratic. And your attitude here proves it worked like a charm.

The last group that OPENLY tried to prevent certain groups from voting in American elections were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS in the 100-years following the American Civil War!

The key word being "openly". What the Republicans are up to now amounts to the exact same thing; they're just being cagey about it because it's no longer socially acceptable to be quite that open with your racism.

Those southern Democrats have NO MORE POWER in the south! For you to now claim that black Americans are too stupid to acquire a valid photo-ID is what former President Reagan called: "the soft bigotry of low expectations!"

For the third time, it wasn't Reagan who said that. And no one is saying they're stupid; what we are saying is that the proposed Voter ID laws are a roadblock designed specifically to make it harder for them to vote. It has nothing to do with their intelligence.

"By the way, your argument reminds me of a common refrain in the gun control debate, in which I'd be willing to bet you are staunchly opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on buying a gun."

I don't believe that criminals should be allowed to have guns. But I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER wrong with law-abiding Americans owning & carrying firearms. I think that disarming law-abiding Americans is the heighth of folly. I also think that Vice President Joe Biden's idea of putting-up "Gun-Free Zone" signs at schools & at other public places was an act of incredible stupidity! I mean, since WHEN is a murderous killer ever going to be deterred by such gross silliness?

The point is, you're arguing that in one case we should have a law despite no real evidence of its necessity, and in another you're arguing that we shouldn't have a law because the criminals won't obey it anyway. So which is right? They can't both be.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Yes, and there is NO evidence that such widespread fakery has been going on with respect to voter fraud."

If that's true then let's require a photo-ID to vote! What's the problem?

"we are saying is that the proposed Voter ID laws are a roadblock designed specifically to make it harder for them to vote."

So... what you're saying is that black people and other minorities lack the intelligence to go out and acquire a valid photo-ID? I don't know... that just sounds incredibly racist to me!

"you're arguing that in one case we should have a law despite no real evidence of its necessity, and in another you're arguing that we shouldn't have a law because the criminals won't obey it anyway. So which is right? They can't both be."

You just have to use COMMON SENSE! Requiring a photo-ID to vote is common sense. Putting up signs saying "Gun-Free Zone" and expecting them to deter violent, murderous criminals is NOT common sense!

 

[phrodeau]

Gun free zones help keep people safe from serious injuries.

Violent, murderous criminals aren’t deterred by anything.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Yes, and there is NO evidence that such widespread fakery has been going on with respect to voter fraud."

If that's true then let's require a photo-ID to vote! What's the problem?

Asked and answered, repeatedly.

"we are saying is that the proposed Voter ID laws are a roadblock designed specifically to make it harder for them to vote."

So... what you're saying is that black people and other minorities lack the intelligence to go out and acquire a valid photo-ID? I don't know... that just sounds incredibly racist to me!

No. What I'm saying is the proposed laws are specifically targeting people who will have trouble getting an ID - and might not be able to get one at all - not because they're not intelligent, but because they were born in a time and place where documentation was poor. That's the whole point of these laws, not stopping the already extremely rare crime of voter fraud!

Putting up signs saying "Gun-Free Zone" and expecting them to deter violent, murderous criminals is NOT common sense!

I agree completely. Which is why we ought to follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world and implement real gun control.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have read a lot of bellyaching about how it is harder for some people to register and to vote than it is for others. Actually, it's much easier for residents of central cities than it is for those who live in rural or suburban areas.

Consider this: People register in places such as City Hall, the DMV, the county courthouse or similar public buildings. Bigger cities are more likely than small towns or villages to have such places. Furthermore, they are almost certain to have public transit systems. I was raised in a village with a population of about 2,000. I never voted there because I was underaged, but even if I had been older, there would have been difficulties. There were no public buildings at all in this village and the population was too small for anybody to set up registrations booths anywhere.

If I had been old enough vote, I would have had to make my way to the county seat about 20 miles away. This would have meant driving there or taking the Greyhound bus which ran through town twice a day. There was no other public transportation. Registering to vote would have been an all-day proposition.

That county seat was the central city. Almost all the people who lived in the county and were members of a minority lived there. They had numerous public buildings where people could register to vote and a public transit system to get them to the state or county or city buildings.

As I said, when I lived in the village, I was less than 21 years old and could neither register nor vote. When I reached my majority, I was living in San Francisco and easily walked over to City Hall to register. Had I chosen to do so, I could have gone to several different DMV offices or registered at one of the booths which were located in shopping centers or similar places. I walked to City Hall, but I could have taken a city bus there or to one of the many other places available. Registering to vote was a piece of cake when I lived in a central city.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Gun free zones help keep people safe from serious injuries."

"Gun-Free Zones" have certainly aided mass-murderers by letting them know ahead of time that nobody in that location is armed.

YDB95 writes: "What I'm saying is the proposed laws are specifically targeting people who will have trouble getting an ID - and might not be able to get one at all - not because they're not intelligent, but because they were born in a time and place where documentation was poor."

Places "where documentation is poor" sound EXACTLY like the kind of Democratic Party-controlled precincts most likely to engage in widespread voter fraud! Why not STOP putting Democrats in charge and instead improving services? And then everybody can show a photo-ID before voting!

"I agree completely. Which is why we ought to follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world and implement real gun control."

But NOT like Chicago - which, as we all know, is the murder capital of the world - no, we need concealed carry for those law-abiding Americans who know how to handle a gun!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "What I'm saying is the proposed laws are specifically targeting people who will have trouble getting an ID - and might not be able to get one at all - not because they're not intelligent, but because they were born in a time and place where documentation was poor."

Places "where documentation is poor" sound EXACTLY like the kind of Democratic Party-controlled precincts most likely to engage in widespread voter fraud!

According to your fevered imagination and absolutely nothing else. You say that again and again and again, and your only "evidence" is a voting trend in California that's easily explained by something not at all illegal: even Republicans there were disgusted by Trump.

Why not STOP putting Democrats in charge and instead improving services?

Improving services by...electing the party that supports cutting all public services to the bone except for defense. And which has a track record of obstructing black voters in the South with "almost surgical precision" (that's not some partisan hack talking, it's the US Court of Appeals). Yeah, that'll make it a LOT easier for elderly African Americans to get an ID.

"I agree completely. Which is why we ought to follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world and implement real gun control."

But NOT like Chicago - which, as we all know, is the murder capital of the world - no, we need concealed carry for those law-abiding Americans who know how to handle a gun!

Incorrect as usual, your majesty. Besides, there ain't no metal detector on the Wisconsin state line keeping the guns out. What your point - even if it were correct - really shows is that we need nationwide gun control.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "According to your fevered imagination and absolutely nothing else. You say that again and again and again, and your only "evidence" is a voting trend in California that's easily explained by something not at all illegal: even Republicans there were disgusted by Trump."

My "fevered imagination" has nothing to do with it.

Hillary Clinton finished with 65,000 fewer votes nationwide than President Obama received in 2012 - but she got nearly 900-thousand MORE votes than Obama in the state of California? HOW is that possible?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

"Improving services by...electing the party that supports cutting all public services to the bone except for defense."

Cutting off "all public services?" You're just making stuff up again.

"And which has a track record of obstructing black voters in the South with "almost surgical precision" (that's not some partisan hack talking, it's the US Court of Appeals). Yeah, that'll make it a LOT easier for elderly African Americans to get an ID."

So... elderly WHITE people can get photo-ID's with no problem, but you believe that elderly BLACK people lack the intelligence to do so? Again, that's "the soft bigotry of low expectations" once again rearing its ugly head.

You're using elderly black Americans as an excuse for Democrats to cheat on election day. Seriously, YDB95 - you need to brush up on your American history some before insisting that there's NEVER been any election fraud in this nation.

You can start with the 1948 Democratic Party U.S. Senate run-off in the state of Texas, which put LBJ in the U.S. Senate! And then jump ahead to Chicago's Cook County in 1960, that put JFK in the White House!

Every corrupt election precinct in America has pretty-much ALWAYS been a Democratic Party stronghold, which is one of the reasons why that party vehemently opposes all voter-photo-ID laws!

 

[Boxlicker101]

According to your fevered imagination and absolutely nothing else. You say that again and again and again, and your only "evidence" is a voting trend in California that's easily explained by something not at all illegal: even Republicans there were disgusted by Trump.





Improving services by...electing the party that supports cutting all public services to the bone except for defense. And which has a track record of obstructing black voters in the South with "almost surgical precision" (that's not some partisan hack talking, it's the US Court of Appeals). Yeah, that'll make it a LOT easier for elderly African Americans to get an ID.

Incorrect as usual, your majesty. Besides, there ain't no metal detector on the Wisconsin state line keeping the guns out. What your point - even if it were correct - really shows is that we need nationwide gun control.

You are aware, I hope, the party with a track record of obstructing black voters in the south is the Democratic Party.