Quit your crying. Honestly. It's embarrassing. Quit whining like a little spoiled brat that didn't get their way. For ****s sake, are you a little b**** or a grown man. Grow a pair for God's sake.
You don't know a pair when they're waving in your face. You only know what you read on crap websites, or watch on crap cable news channels. So yeah, your full of crap. Your swimming in it. You pour it into this forum. A "falcon?" I have to laugh. You aren't even a tweetie bird. In fact, you are an insult to the bird world. Where's Hitchcock?
I swear, I picture you stomping around, pouting, huffing and puffing, throwing a huge temper tantrum, all the while name calling. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be amusing.
You can have states' rights without the EC. But the EC makes a lot of sense in the context of a union of sovereign states. I do think it's a great lie that the EC means that only a few states have electoral power. States that are solidly blue or solidly red largely dictate what the platforms will be and who the candidates will be before even a primary starts. Just because they don't swing back and forth in election cycles doesn't mean they don't impact outcomes. Yeah, states' rights is loaded. I'd call it a dog whistle if I didn't find that term so annoying. People have been using states rights as cover to commit great sins since before the Civil War. But, it's also a real thing. It's in the Constitution. You can load it with all the racial baggage you want and it'll still be a real thing. And just like the fights you get into when you try to abridge someone's right to speech or to arms or to religion, you're going to get a lot of fights when you want to tread on the rights and powers of states. We agreed we'd have this Constitution thing dictate how we'd run our government. So even if appeals to states' rights are only for political expediency, the argument still has power because of that. And you're wrong about the conservative dogma. It is not that power is better localized. It is that the primary political power is meant to reside in the states -- not in the federal government and not in municipal government. So Charlotte should not be Charlotte. North Carolina should be North Carolina, and North Carolina can give leave to Charlotte to do certain things as North Carolina sees fit. The Constitution doesn't define any powers for cities. It defines the powers and the limits of the federal government and cedes anything undefined to the states. I think we're seeing that now in the legislative priorities in Texas, North Carolina, and elsewhere where states are asserting their primacy over municipal governments and making laws about what cities can and cannot do. It's politically expedient because cities tend to be more liberal. But the Constitution is also expedient because that's the structure defined. Now, maybe you're right that Republicans would be completely hypocritical if the tables were turned -- they're human after all -- but that doesn't invalidate the argument.
Even states that "don't swing" sometimes do. Just look at this election. Pennsylvania and Michigan are states that "don't swing".....but they did. Hell the last time they were red states for an election, so was California.
You really do not have the first clue about states rights. States Rights gives the state the right to make whatever law they choose, whether this be for more taxes, stricter gun laws, crappy voter registration ... I could go on all day. Liberal: "Everyone in the nation has to succumb to what i believe" States Rights: "Let the state decide. If you don't like it, change the law or move". And no, regardless of the popular vote outcome, I would respect the EC process regardless of who won.
This is dogma straight from Ronald Reagan. BTW dogma by its very nature does not have to mean sense. "tax cuts that pay for themselves", "socialism is bad" etc
I am not one for abolishing the EC like Bobby wants. I think there should be a final guardian to whom becomes President.
And of course the mindless liberals in this thread will only respect the EC if they fail to do their job and instead elect the person they want.....you know, there's really no difference between those on the left in this forum and Donald Trump if you really think about it. If he was still calling himself a Democrat, they'd likely be big supporters of his.
The same guardian that predetermined Hillary to be their nominee long before the primaries were over?
Go back to your angry white man programming Space Cadet. You have no clue what I am talking about obviously.
Ya... Private organizations always have their favorites. The RNC every Presidential election cycle has their favorite that is propped up by the RNC establishment. It's just most of you fools are too naive to understand that only one side had their private correspondences leaked. So now all you naive fools can sit on your imaginary high horse.
We both can agree that there is Constitutional State Rights and political "state rights". I actually have a lot of sympathy for Constitutional State Rights. There are some issues (like gay marriage) where it makes sense for the bright red states to proceed at their own pace. Unfortunately that is not how the Supreme Court rolls. The original Constitution was a flawed document, filled with compromises. Barely out of the starting gate, ten amendments were added. These first ten amendments contain foundational rights. Without these rights, we would probably not be able to recognized our country. Another point wrt the first ten amendments is that the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be amended and did so themselves almost immediately. In fact this has happened 27 times. Foundational rights like woman's suffrage and outlawing slavery were added. At the start of our country, the USA was a collection of sovereign states. The federal government was minimal and the President was more of a figurehead than a chief executive. But not to forget, only white men with property could vote. Our country and its constitution have evolved since then. The federal government is much larger, states have less sovereignty and fewer rights and all citizens of age can vote. We may want sovereign state rights to return but that is not going to happen.
