You want to put words in my mouth
Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.
and you're being civil?
Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.
It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.
That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent"
First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.
Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?
They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.
Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.
Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.
Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...
And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in dramatic fashion so we could get some traction for actually fixing the broken system that even *your candidate* has spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about.
I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?
Haha, you did. There's no question you did. Go back and read it. Also, I'm not unhappy that you've directed your anger at the other commenter towards me. On the contrary, I'm ecstatic that you've revealed yourself as the unreasonable buffoon that you are. When you chose not to acknowledge your lack of civility, I chose to match it out of respect for your communication style. I did it out of love...not anger or unhappiness. hugs
I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.
You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?
So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever. There's very little difference. I'm sorry you were insulted by the idea that you'd make the extra click to look at someone's post history. I didn't intend it like that, and there's no reason to feel that way about checking someone's post history. This entire shitshow is a waste of time and getting to know someone through their comment history doesn't make it any more-so... What an insignificant inference to choose as an example... I guess it's fair to assume the rest of what I've "inferred" is too far beyond your capacity to argue.
Finally, I've already made it clear that I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process....or at least help those who might be misinformed if they were to believe the nonsense in your comments. There's really no inference required to understand your perspective and position. It's all there in your comments plain as day, and it doesn't change the reality of what you've said when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context for a one-line zinger. Have a great Saturday.
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.
If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.
Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.
It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
I don't have to be correct. I just don't want you to be mistaken.
Hmm, have you still not read the OP and other comments in this thread? You are correct, and I'm not mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, "Preaching to the choir..."?
I think years of reading and commenting on Slashdot has made my comments a little more confrontational than I intend sometimes.
Me too. I try to keep a handle on it, but when the urge becomes unbearable, I'm ashamed to admit that I'll check the post anonymously box.
What does that amount to? A month? A week's worth of revenue? Show some teeth dammit! Revoke their charter...
You're right, but you shouldn't be.
Interesting commentary. Yea, I've always felt this way... Couldn't you have skipped the wall of text laced with insult and just posted the quote above....or at least just skip the lacing? You're not an AC. Show some tact.