On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:15:05 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

On 6/11/16 6:50 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:15:05 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.


Isn't it true that your residing in Alexandria/Springfield has
significantly raised the percentage of old white racists in that area?

Jun 9Keyser Söze
Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even
toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch.
.....

Yeah, I thought it was funny too. After she'd masquerading as a Native American for years, Liz turns around and called Trump a "fraud". Lol

On 6/11/16 7:08 AM, Tim wrote:
Jun 9Keyser Söze
Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even
toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch.
....

Yeah, I thought it was funny too. After she'd masquerading as a Native American for years, Liz turns around and called Trump a "fraud". Lol



I recall reading some years ago that her parents told her repeatedly
when she was a little girl that she was descended from Native Americans.
I don't know if what her parents told her is true, but she believed it.

Apparently your parents told you about Jesus, and you believed it.

Familial myths die hard.

And yes, Donald Trump is a racist and a fraud and much worse.

Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius.

You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence.
Hmmm myths do die hard, eh

On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote:
Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius.

You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence.
Hmmm myths do die hard, eh



Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly
about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents.

You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new
testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh?

If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here,
I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here,
I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere.

===

Why are you here?

On 6/11/16 8:28 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here,
I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere.

===

Why are you here?


It's the only venue I have to keep track of conservatrash.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote:
Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius.

You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence.
Hmmm myths do die hard, eh



Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly
about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents.

You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new
testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh?

If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here,
I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere.

For one as well versed in deceit as yourself, I find it odd that you actually believe Warren's
story.