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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 6/10/2016 7:17 PM, 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.

Not Florida's fault you broke the rules and had to forfeit your house.

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

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.

===

I'm sure you're not a favor of theirs either.

I'm becoming a bit concerned about your lapses into incoherency. You
should get it checked out.

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.

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.