Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???

Again, we need to be clear not only regarding the fundamental nature of our government - which was established as a Constitutional Republic and NOT a "democracy" - but also the REASON for that structure. If this is understood, then a lot of the "concerns" go away. But we also need to be clear with our definitions: what does "the population demands equal representation" mean? Who is "the population"? What does "equal representation" mean? Does it mean that I, who perhaps do not work for a living and have made a career out of living off the public dole, "demand" that I be given "equal representation" with, say, you, who have worked all your life, paid your taxes and raised your family by the sweat of your brow? And if that is so, does that mean that, perhaps, my demand for "equal representation" is really a demand for more political power so I can dip my hand further into you pocket so that I can extract even more money from you to finance my comfortable and non-working life-style? Now if THAT were so, then you would be justified to ask how JUSTICE is served with this "equal representation" that I and others like me might be "demanding". And it would be a fair question, because in today's America, where we have abandoned capitalism and the respect for private property, a demand for "more equal representation" is really a demand for more power. And since we are referring to POLITICAL power, we are talking about COERCIVE power. And that coercion is NOT going to be exercised over those from which nothing can be extracted. It will be exercised over those who have been responsible and have saved and worked and have accumulated something for themselves and their families over time. So it is from THOSE that "we" will take. So - again - by supporting "my" demand for a "more equal representation", you just might be setting yourself up to be scalped... ... ... by "me", whom you are supporting, of all people!! So... sometimes, it is a good thing to take all these demands with a grain of salt and look a bit more deeply into them before accepting them, as someone else above said, as "reasonable".

People of the future, I want you to gaze upon this record to know that it's not a myth; that there really were people even in 2016 who seemed unable to grasp that California's "Illegals ID" is actually not allowed as ID for voting (it's right there in the law -- in fact, it's not even considered ID at all, as it's not allowed to be used for any other purpose than driving) and specifically has several checks to prevent its use that way in the elections process. Yes, there are people who believe that millions of illegals voted in 2016 despite no evidence whatsoever and only conspiratorial assertions. Yes, there really are people who don't realize that every state allows non-citizens to get Drivers Licenses, because they're considered proof of *Identity* not proof of *Citizenship*. Yes, there really are people who don't realize that the total *Identity* fraud (the only kind voter ID can stop) since the turn of the millennium, according to studies, is less than the number of students in many elementary school classrooms in this nation, although a good number of them probably internally realize that voter ID efforts were really always and only about suppressing a significant chunk of their political opponents' *lawful* turnout.

People of the future, please don't judge the rest of us too harshly. I want you to know that we tried to educate them, but they stuck to their comforting untruths despite the sheer weight of evidence showing yet another part of their increasingly troublesome worldview to be bull. And, depending on how badly those willfully misinformed have sabotaged the future that you call your present, I hope that you'll be able to forgive them.

People of the future… please be well informed when you study our history and do not go merely by the written record – but try to discern the practice of the time. Although some will try to label as myths that which they don’t understand, do not be fooled by simplistic interpretations. For example, there may be those among you who might say that robbing institutions where our wealth was stored could NEVER have happened because “it is written, right there in their laws, that this was forbidden”. Those among you who might say that are ignorant of the facts as they happen… not as they are written. We’ve had MANY instances where our institutions for storing our wealth were robbed.
For those intent on taking what is not theirs… just like for those who incessantly hunger for power at the expense of the people they claim to “help”.., the laws mean nothing. For example, people of the future, we have had organizations such as Acorn, whose sole purpose was to create fraudulent votes and/or activate fraudulent voters. That’s why we have jurisdictions (we call them “states”, people of the future, in some cases, “battleground states”, with state names like Iowa and Colorado) that have MORE “registered voters” than eligible voters living in those same states. So you see, people of the future, it may be easy for the foolish among you to arrive at the wrong conclusions merely by studying “legal requirements”.
Besides, people of the future, we had many habitual defenders of lies and hypocrisy. For example, we had a person in position of power mishandle, store personally and treat with gross negligence information at the TOP SECRET SI level, with absolutely no consequences… whereas some minor functionary that mishandled CONFIDENTIAL information was imprisoned. And yet, many were they who screamed and brayed, people of the future, about the person in power’s right to be free of consequences. So people in power who can rig the system and orchestrate their useful fools in their favor have no respect for laws anyways.
For your enlightenment, people of the future, let me provide some insight as to the background of this, since some among you may be inclined to superficiality.
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), better known as the Motor Voter Law, was enacted in 1993. Section 7 of the NVRA made voter registration available at local departments of motor vehicle locations and other government offices. Section 8 required a system in place to ensure the voting rolls were kept clean to preserve election integrity. Some administrations, under appropriate leadership, actually enforced this and the voting section within what was once our Justice Department’s civil rights division would generate law suits against the states over allegations of improper voter list maintenance.
However, at one point, a very wily communist with no real experience (other than as a street punk in Chicago) managed to weasel and ooze himself into our principal leadership residence, people of the future, which was called the White House. He achieved this with the assistance of organizations like the aforementioned Acorn and others like them, who fabricated votes (although they were forced to disband eventually under threat of prosecution by state authorities…and then reconfigured themselves into NEW organizations but with the same purpose). But, interestingly, once this wily communist sleazed into the principal leadership slot, the now “justice” department lost interest in the lawsuits against states who were not responsible in maintaining their voter lists. No surprises there, people of the future.
Oh, wait! … people of the future. There WAS ONE lawsuit in which the new “justice” department under the communist administration WAS interested. It was one in which it tried to force the state of Florida to STOP REMOVING NON-CITIZENS who were on the voter rolls in the run up to the 2012 elections. So for this administration and its supporters, it was only important to keep the voting lists clean IF AND ONLY IF it benefited THEM. If it didn’t, then anything went.
So be very wary, people of the future, of people who come up with nice sounding stories to try to justify the unjustifiable or who try to negate or deny reality with a lot of legalistic mumbo-jumbo which, in the REAL world, they ignore.
Now, people of the future, lest you take away a wrong impression, note that we also had responsible jurists who examined issues like this and provided sane, objective opinions untainted by agendas, ideologies, prejudices, sheer ignorance or unrestrained desires to tell other people what to do or force or impose their will on citizens. Judge Andrew Napolitano was one such jurist, well-versed in the Constitution but also well-versed on the reality of the practices of the time. For your benefit, people of the future, I have extracted some of his observations from an article dealing with the situation in California written about one year ago:
SELECTIVE EXTRACT (of article by S. Guest, 10/13/2015)
Napolitano explained that in California, when one signs up for a driver’s license, one does not have to prove that they are in America legally. Napolitano explained that “other states… permit registration [to vote] at the time you get a driver’s license, have you go through another procedure in which you have to demonstrate citizenship.”
The new law in California would make the process “one procedure” according to Napolitano. “You may not even know that when you get your driver’s license you’re also being registered to vote. And there’s no requirement of proof of citizenship.” Napolitano argued, “All 50 states limit voting to citizens except when the state allows you to sort-of sneak in without proving your citizenship by getting a driver’s license instead.”
Napolitano explained that the argument about whether or not voting is a “fundamental right” comes down to whether or not voting “comes from our humanity like thought and speech and association and worship and self-defense? Or is it a privilege given by the government?”
Napolitano believes “the Supreme Court has wrongly said it’s a fundamental right. And once it said that, states like California decided to allow people to vote who aren’t qualified by law to vote because of the fundamental aspect.”
Napolitano argued that while it would be against the law for an illegal immigrant to vote in a federal election, “there’s really no way to monitor it. So if you are an illegal alien in California, get a driver’s license, register to vote, you can vote in local, state, and federal elections in California and those votes count.”
Napolitano emphasized, “It’s almost impossible to monitor this if the state is going to provide shelter for illegals to vote.”

So there you have it, people of the future, a little bit of insight that might help you explain some of the results we had in the selection process which we called "elections" in our year 2016 AD.

Well, I certainly hope that fact-checking in the future is robust, because as with your other Gish Gallop responses (if you don't know that term, you should look it up) up and down this topic, without exception, there's a fair amount of flatly-false items, and an even larger amount of dishonestly-spun or conspiratorial items in there, and what's left that's actually true and without serious mis-characterization ended up well hidden. I think you very well know that people don't have the time to address the sheer scope of the endless stream of absurdities that come from you, and it's very clear that you have zero interest in listening so we'd basically be lecturing a brick wall.

At the end of the day, though, you've staked your tent with the crowd that has stated, emphatically and repeatedly, that there are MILLIONS of fraudulent votes. Not a few, not a few hundred, not even a few thousand, but millions, all miraculously for the same person. One of the most publicly scrutinized events on earth, studied by numerous experts in statistical processes and other related disciplines, and yet somehow not only did these millions allegedly cheat the system so perfectly as to leave no definitive trace, but they couldn't even change the result?

But, to be fair, the world awaits your strong, qualitative evidence. I mean, for such a bold claim, there MUST be good evidence, right? Oh, that's right, you don't have any at all (nor will you), merely endless claims and assertions, and ever-more complex conspiracies to hold those together when the evidence continually fails to materialize.

I really feel sorry for people like you, because you are so far down the rabbit-hole that you really seem to be lost to the idea of reality even existing any more. You perfectly encapsulate the virulence of American Anti-intellectualism, which is more of a threat to America's future than terrorism ever had the ability to be.

Tell me how you really feel! LOL

Well, the emotional outburst was pretty good! :)
The question, of course, is "why?"... which presupposes you have an understanding not only of how the Electoral College works, but also of its function and its role in keeping this conglomeration of disparate states together as a nation.
It would be interesting to read your rational argumentation in favor of your position.

If anyone, anywhere were trying to assert that we were a "pure" democracy, that would mean something. But nobody is, despite constant right-wing attempts to falsely claim the left is. The point is that, without the democratic element, there's no meaningful distinction between us and all the other republics that don't respect the rights and freedoms that we do. Your "small d, big R" bit is nonsensical, because it is -- and *always* will be -- the democratic element and its related concept of liberty and justice for all that makes the republic worthy of defending and respecting in the first place. Without that, it's literally merely the structure of government, but without the American ideals that allow that government to be great. That makes the democratic element fundamentally more important, not less.

MAJ (Join to see) - Unfortunately, it appears that it is you who missed the principal point. Not only did you fly right by it, but you arrive at a mistaken conclusion and use it to erroneously support the "democracy" harangue.
You indicate: "What's missing from so many of these places is the idea of *democratic authority* to the republic."
WRONG!
What's missing from these places is a CONSTITUTION (which you mention but fail to really grasp its significance) that establishes that it is the INDIVIDUAL and not the STATE that is the owner of certain fundamental and "inalienable" RIGHTS. THAT is the essence of LIBERTY - which is what is important, and not "democracy". You have many republics out there that claim the "missing" *democratic authority* you incorrectly allege. That does not exempt them from being oppressive, totalitarian regimes with zero respect for the rights of any minorities in their midst. They can even show you the "numbers" in their democratic elections to support their claim. Chavez in Venezuela did this all the time... while driving that once prosperous country and its people into the ground. But this was not the first time that a country elected itself into a government that drove it to a state of misery... and it won't be the last. Other countries have claimed democratic centralism, with "higher voter participation rates" than ours, and yet have been bloody dictatorships.
The Founding Fathers were VERY aware of this threat of a "tyranny of the majority", which is why they structured the electoral system the way they did. They wanted to guarantee a FREE people freedom from the oppression of a state unconstrained by a limiting Constitution. And that's why they wrote the constituting document that described those inalienable rights as property of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS and not the STATE.
Even with the protections in our Constitution, we see the "tyranny of the majority" in operation all over this country. Go to any "big name" eastern university campus (just to narrow down the geographic zone) and express an opinion that does not fit the mamby-pamby, wishy-wasy, wimpy word- and thought-nazi requirements. People will throw their hands up in the air, claim all sorts of non-existent offenses, throw the book at you and attempt to get you expelled because you did not conform to their fascistic socialist ideology. Within that environment, within that little universe, the tyranny of the majority is alive and well. Not because they are right... but because they will castigate, with the full power of their law, any and all deviations from the authorized and approved socialist fascist line...
How prevalent is this? Well, behavior demonstrates that it is very prevalent. When this spoiled "majority" (in their universe) does NOT get their way, they resort to tantrums and require toddler level "therapy" to get them back into their "we are the majority and its what we want" state. Need an example? Let's look at what the University of Michigan Law School had to do to calm the "tensions" of students "upset" by 2016 electoral results (they didn't get "their majority" way): "Join us for delicious and comforting food with opportunity to experience some stress-busting, self-care activities such as coloring sheets, play dough, positive card-making, Legos, and bubbles with your fellow law students." This is for LAW STUDENTS, mind you, not freshmen just out of high school encountering the world for the first time. We're talking about adults here. What a farce!
So if you stick to "democracy", this is what you get. The tyranny of the majority... and you don't get the Play-Doh or the bubbles if you don't like it. Ask the starving populace of Venezuela, who are suffering the consequences of their democratically elected government.
So I would recommend you open your eyes and look around at reality. It isn't pretty, but it will teach you a lot that your "hi-falutin' theory" can not and will not explain.
So you can *(sigh)* all you want (a gesture that would be well received by those U of M Law School students), but this country is STILL a Constitutional Republic and it is it's CONSTITUTION, with the respect and protection for individual rights, that has provided the essence of liberty that we've enjoyed in this country.
All of this can be explained in greater detail, but this has all been explained thoroughly elsewhere, by many people who understand.
Oh! And by the way... next time you post, don't use the propaganda technique of setting up a "straw man" (a "republic", in your case) and attacking that. But I might be unjust. It just might have been that you totally missed the point of a Constitutional Republic and misconstrued what people were trying to teach you.
*(sigh)* I feel so sad and ashamed for our education system when I see people who should definitely know better spouting nonsensical arguments about "democracy" and related subjects!

*sigh*
If nothing else, your screeds do require someone to be more careful in their choice of language. I suppose that is a good thing, if possibly the only one.

What you got right:
-- Our Constitution is what actually codifies the rights.
-- Our Constitution doesn't *grant* rights, but rather specifies that they already exist (though nobody was arguing that, it's at least reasonable to point out that it is in fact correct).
-- That we have a Republic.

What you got wrong:
-- Your bizarre statement suggesting that because a country *calls* itself democratic, that means they must be treated as actually fulfilling it. People can *call* themselves or their institutions whatever they want; that doesn't make it true.
-- Saying that Republic is the meaningful measure. It is a *structure* of government, not an *authority* of government. The fact that republics don't have to grant any liberty at all, as has been pointed out, should end that.
-- Saying that we're *not* a democracy. Also, attempting to salvage that flub by saying "pure" democracy or some other construct that adds an adjective to the term as an attempt to dodge. Sorry, but as long as our government is founded on and by "We The People," and as long as the people are the fundamental genesis of the authority of the state as carried out *through* a constitution, that dog don't hunt.
-- Similarly, adding "Constitutional" as an adjective to "Republic" as if that changes the fact that all along you've been trying to salvage the term "Republic" in particular in this discussion. Of course, the cause of that mistake may be because...
-- You don't get that CONSTITUTIONS DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT TO GRANT ANY RIGHTS AT ALL. Every nation has a Constitution at this point; that doesn't mean it grants rights at all to the people, let alone any specific ones in particular. It's not the fact that there *is* a constitution, it's what that constitution *does* that matters.
-- You don't get that self-rule (aka "democracy") is itself a well-recognized *form* of liberty, because it is a granting of the most fundamental kind of *agency*. And in having said liberty, it provides a foundational backstop idea for other liberties to be discussed. It's true that it doesn't guarantee other liberties, and that other liberties can be codified without a democracy, but when taken as an idea to inform the discussion of rights it provides a more constructive and nuanced backdrop than does "republic."
-- When you say, as you repeatedly have here, "we're a republic not a democracy" only to RETREAT to saying "bbb...but CONSTITUTION" (without the faintest glimmer of realization that those two are not synonymous), you betrayed the lie that was the problem from the start. If "Constitution" was your ultimate critical word, say THAT, not something else. That was the mistake I made as well, in explaining that "democracy" is a more important point than "republic" (which it still is) I inadvertently put it at the top as the source of rights rather than as one of the more fundamental rights.

So, to put it more simply:
[Rights/Liberty] ≠ [Constitution]
(Neither rights nor a constitution imply each other; either can exist without the other)
[Rights/Liberty] ≠ [Republic]
(Neither rights nor republics imply each other; either can exist without the other)
[Democracy] ∈ [Right/Liberty]
(But Democracy, as in the idea/principle of self-rule, is fundamentally a kind of right)
[Democracy] ≠ ["Pure" Democracy]
(And importantly, Democracy *must* be understood as the principle -- the idea and the ideal of self-government -- not as a form/structure of government that merely uses the word)
["Pure" Democracy] ⊄ [Democracy]
(In fact, "Pure" democracy isn't really considered to be a true subset of democracy by most, specifically because it deprives the minority of any agency at all, thus it is only self-rule for some, not really validly representing all)
[Democracy] > [Republic]
(Because of the preceding item of Democracy being a kind of Right/Liberty, the *idea* of self-rule is more fundamentally important to the concept of rights and liberties than is the fact of a Republican *structure* of government)

So the true value of our nation ISN'T that it's a Republic. It ISN'T that it has a Constitution. It's what's ENSHRINED in our Constitution -- the rights/liberties -- and among those rights/liberties is Democracy (which as said before is a principle, not a structure). As one of the very rights we so cherish, it is itself more important than things that are only structural elements of governance. That's not to say the structure isn't itself important, but let's be honest here - if it weren't *for* those rights, the Constitution would just be another piece of paper; it's the rights themselves, AMONG them being Democracy, that render the paper and the ideas it established so priceless. You can't actually separate Democracy from being one of those important American values, nor should you try.

And before you start lecturing people about the failures of the education system while being a wonderful example yourself, maybe you should pull yourself up from that tar pit of mindless conspiracy theories that you keep peddling left and right. That is such a stunning embarrassment that if you had any clue how bad it makes you look you'd probably delete your account and disappear from the internet for good. You are a cast-iron pot calling a stainless-steel kettle black. Or as Twain put it, "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." And boy is quite a bit of what you know just not so...

You know, if you keep (*sighing) like that, you’ll run out of hot air.
But let’s start off by congratulating you on the creation of several straw men that you then proceed to attack. For some, it might appear as an “effective” technique, but it’s essentially a transparent propaganda technique. Nice try, though.
I could go through each one of your statements where you state that I alleged something (which I did not) and then refute it. But again, that would be playing to your straw man technique… and to your weak effort to deviate attention not only from the facts presented, but also from the main discussion thread. I am sure that you WISH I would have said the things you quote me as “saying”, because then you could have refuted them. But I guess that when you can’t refute, you simply create arguments that you CAN refute. Well, I’m sure that this technique at least satisfies your ego… although, in effect, all you did was spend a lot of time arguing against yourself.
You present a lot of misguided, convulsive, and confused rambling… (and I have to wade through your fabrications of what you cite as “my” statements) …so it doesn’t make any sense to respond to that.
Perhaps the best way to respond is by analyzing what you present in a way of “conclusion” or ”summary”:
To copy from YOUR statement:
“So the true value of our nation ISN'T that it's a Republic. It ISN'T that it has a Constitution. It's what's ENSHRINED in our Constitution -- the rights/liberties -- and among those rights/liberties is Democracy…
Interestingly, that appears ALMOST like what I wrote from the get go:
“What's missing… is a CONSTITUTION (which you mention but fail to really grasp its significance) that establishes that it is the INDIVIDUAL and not the STATE that is the owner of certain fundamental and "inalienable" RIGHTS. THAT is the essence of LIBERTY - which is what is important, and not "democracy".”
Now… I realize that, as part of your straw man technique, you grabbed on to the word “Constitution” and left out the rest of the quote, which is really relevant. But I understand that. That’s what propagandists do.
But those two statements DIFFER in a very interesting way. I focus on the essence of LIBERTY which is “enshrined” (to use your word) in the Constitution. You – on the other hand – speak generally of the “rights/liberties” enshrined there too, but focus particularly (and understandably, given what you are trying to sell) on “democracy”.
But INTERESTINGLY the word “DEMOCRACY” is NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the Constitution. Your little “enshrined” story about democracy in the Constitution is as fabricated as your other arguments. Contrary to the concepts of LIBERTY, that are clearly delineated, the word “democracy” is nowhere to be found. When I go to Article II in the Constitution to determine how the president and vice-president are chosen, I find an explanation detailing how Electors should be appointed. So we have three paragraphs there dedicated to what we now call the Electoral College… but nothing about "democracy".
And this takes us back to the original purpose of this thread. The question was whether the Electoral College should be eliminated. And many of those who answered “yes” went on and on about the Electoral College not being “democratic”, and that what was required was a move towards direct popular vote. Now, granted, there were people pushing this argument merely because they were dissatisfied with the results of the election. Some admitted it. Others implied it. Still others gave themselves away when they tried to come up with convoluted explanations that even they didn’t understand. And some others – such as yourself – tried to talk about how we need to focus on “democracy”… and how democracy is “enshrined” in the Constitution… even though the word is not even mentioned in the document… as a way of justifying the position that the president should be elected by popular vote.
Now, some grab on to “We the people” – the opening phrase in the Preamble - as a claim to the existence of “democracy” in the document. But that’s in the Preamble… and the Preamble was added more or less as an afterthought. It was never proposed or discussed at the Constitutional Convention. Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania, came up with a draft because he was a member of the Committee of Style.
And, as the Supreme Court stated in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
“The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument.”
Notwithstanding the above, we can still look to the preamble as a general statement of purpose of sorts. It “points the way” to what is coming in the Constitution itself. And it does state – very clearly – that part of that purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty…” [not ‘democracy’] “…for ourselves and our posterity”.
This is not to say that democracy is a “bad” thing. But it is an offshoot of LIBERTY... of FREEDOM. And it is exercised directly at the state level. This is how we choose our state leaders. And because LIBERTY is enshrined in the Constitution, then that liberty is expressed at the national level – because we ARE the UNITED States – through the mechanism described in the Constitution – which enshrines liberty. That mechanism is the Electoral College.
And it turned out that the Electoral College was a more effective mechanism for selecting the leadership of a nation composed of very diverse states… and it guaranteed that a few high population states did not monopolize the selection of that leadership. And it also turned out that the Electoral College has been instrumental in keeping us together as a nation precisely because it decreases the impact of high population state monopoly. So we’ve had a few instances in which some candidates “won” the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. From a Constitutional standpoint, the logical response to that is “so what?” The “popular vote” (and the word “democracy”) is not in the Constitution. We have the Electoral College, and it has worked.
So we are back to the main subject of the discussion thread. I’m afraid that your many attempts to deviate from the subject, and your attempts to rephrase others’ arguments to then refute your own inventions, didn’t really get you anywhere.
I get the impression that in your own clouded way, you understood that liberty was a key concept in the Constitution. In fact, you even rephrased my statement to that effect and tried to present it as your own observation. Your confusion is a product of the rigmarole you went through in arguing against yourself. You failed to grasp the fact that LIBERTY comes first… and since it comes first…THAT is why it is enshrined in the Constitution. And it was FREE men who came up with the document that enshrined freedom. And in the process, since they lived in the real world, they came up with a system which they felt would guarantee that freedom “to ourselves and our Posterity”. In that document, they included the mechanisms which became our guarantee.
So our constitution was important in that it first enshrined LIBERTY and enumerated rights (men deprived of liberty have no rights) as limitations on the government. Then it went on to define the actual structure of the mechanisms of governance and how those free men would choose their leadership at the national level… given that this was a collection of sovereign states that would adopt a national identity. But “popular vote” was not mentioned. Even “democracy” was not mentioned.
And in this particular forum, “democracy” is being used to try to justify “popular vote”. It’s a lot like “climate change”. People were talking about “global warming” this and “global warming” that. When slowly, through the haze of propaganda being disseminated by the “global warming” marketers, it became evident that the hard evidence simply was NOT there to justify the claims being made, somebody said “Hey! Let’s change the term to “climate change”! That’s sufficiently unspecific that we can push global warming and sidestep the facts and the arguments.”
Same thing is happening here. People are pushing a word (“democracy”) in order to sell “popular vote”. Some are even trying to call it a “Constitutional right” even though the word is not even in the Constitution.
Go figure…
The best course of action is probably to ignore the inanities and spend time dealing with rational people who REALLY respect and understand LIBERTY.
As to your other comments, well... maybe if I have some time on my hands and nothing better to do, I will address them at some future point...
...but don't hold your breath.

It won't go very far now that there is a Republican Congress.