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.
So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.
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
You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.
My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,
Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people challenging Hillary had she won or the other way around. 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.
If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent,
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent", it is a simple statement of fact. I've followed the rules so many times when my favored candidate didn't win that it is simply ridiculous to claim that trying to follow the rules is some political thing.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing.
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.
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
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?
you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
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?