America's Presidential electoral college system: a severe Achilles heel.

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Bic_Cherry, Dec 5, 2019.

  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    31,373
    Likes Received:
    8,402
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You were doing exactly as suspected, confusing automatic and semi-automatic weapons. So let me try again, can you source this claim, "The US has the highest death-rate from automatic weapons of any developed nation on earth?"
     
  2. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply put:

    The electoral vote was originally established two fold reasons: 1-states with sparse populations would not be consistently out matched by states with larger populations. 2-states who native American and African slave populations surpassed the European descendant (white) populations.

    Now remember, the electoral vote was intended to represent the popular vote of each state. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO LAW TO GUARANTEE THAT THE ELECTORAL VOTER FOLLOW THAT RULE ONCE THEY ENTER THE VOTING BOOTH!

    Therefore, it would be most logical to eliminate the electoral vote, as native americans and African Americans are counted as citizens, thus greatly increasing the population of all states. And since we have had the technological means to count everyone's vote for a long time, it stands to reason that should be the ONLY criteria to elect a President.
     
  3. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh really?

    Automatic weapons kill but semi-automatic don't ... ?

    PS: Having looked at the stats, I'll grant you that the statement above in italics is not accurate. There is no study yet (that I can find) distinguishing deaths from automatic and non-automatic weapons. (The data is amalgamated as "gun deaths".) My apologies for having made the statement.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  4. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    This is inaccurate. The Electoral College was created in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. The phrase "Electoral College" or the word "College" never appears in the Constitution or in the amendments to the Constitution. Both refer, equally, to "Electors" so, by definition, there's no difference nor nothing new in the makeup of the "Electors" in the 12th Amendment. Primarily, what the 12th Amendment did was to make the election of the President and of the Vice-President distinct votes, rather than assigning, from one vote, the offices to the number one and number two vote recipients. The purpose behind this change was to make sure the Vice President was in support of the President, i.e., in the same party.

    I'll respond separately to those who are charging that the Electoral College breaks our "democratic system".
     
  5. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Many posts have made the same basic argument; I just clicked this one to frame my response.

    What most here fail to understand (some have proven they get it) is that we are not, and were never intended to be, a democracy. As a republic, a federation of sovereign states, as it were, what the founders intended was not that the people elect the president but that, instead, the States elect the president.

    Just as they intended that the House of Representatives be the People's representatives to Congress, the Senate was to be the States representatives to Congress - also why the States have equal numbers, 2, of senators. The House gave the people of the States a greater voice for those States with a greater population but the States themselves were equal partners in the Union so had two senators each.

    The Electors and the Senate were what made us a republic and not a democracy. Of course the globalists and progressives undid the Senate with the 17th Amendment and, with the 16th Amendment, they made us all subjects of the Federal Government rather than of the States. Next step was to undo the State militias with the National Guard, and all that's left to completely undo the Republic, even if not the union, is to undo the Electoral College. When that is done, the States become nothing more than geo-political territories of the now National Government, wholly subjected to the will of other states and the Federal Government. New York and California will rule the rest of us uncontested.

    Those who love the Constitution and love the United States, as intended by the Founders, must defend the Electoral College at every opportunity.
     
    James California likes this.
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is accurate enough.

    The EC is a manipulative device that has wronged the popular-vote five times in American history since its adoption. Thus voting into office the wrong person.

    You need to go fast-forward to the 21st century! There is NO DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON EARTH that employs a Electoral College as we do. Quite recently (in historical terms) after WW2, won by the US, not even one European country decided to adopt America's misguided electoral-voting system.

    Because it's is the inherently unfair manipulation of the popular-vote that makes the American Electoral College unacceptable. It's been hanging around our necks for more than two centuries and now deserves well a long, long rest by being remodelled.

    In its place, the Electoral College throughout the US - respecting voting-rights as passed by Congress - should uniquely report the
    whole popular-vote to Congress; which then qualifies the voting-result and announces the winner.

    There is no need whatsoever for the idiotic first-past-the-post rule that allocates ALL THE VOTES to the winner (thus destroying popular-votes of American citizens!).

    Further reading on the matter:
    Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained -
     
  7. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, BOLLOCKS!

    What happened 200 years ago is of ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCE TODAY!

    Moreover, your "federation of states" is a cockeyed view of a nation. The states have rights that are limited to their borders and cannot go beyond their borders. States' rights are therefore highly limited in nature. You are trying to obtain for them a stature that they neither have nor ever deserved!

    And harking back to a constitution that is two centuries old will not "do the trick for you". The basic foundation of any democracy must adhere to the times in which it must provide clearly fair-and-honest rules. Thus as times change so does the significance of any "constitution".


    What is the bulls-eye of our concern (here today) is fair, ethical and honest elections, which the present system has denied the American public since the get-go of electioneering in the US. After two centuries it is high time that such a fundamental error be corrected.

    Why the popular-vote should be manipulated by states is patently evident. It is a falsification of voting rights and should be denied! Especially the first-past-the-post rule that allows
    ALL THE VOTES going to the majority winner of the vote. The majority winner does not deserve those votes that were made against his/her election!

    Such a manipulation of the popular-vote is clearly unfair and therefore unacceptable in any country that purports itself to be a Real&True Democracy ... !
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You need a dictionary. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the two ...
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

    Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
     
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From the above:
    1- This is of complete irrelevance given that the Senate was and still is of two-votes, which (if in sufficient agreement) smaller states could combine to (try to) overcome larger states wherever they thought a law was favoring the latter.

    2 - Also irrelevant in that the impact on "white anglo-saxon" votes would not be impinged since they were in the majority.

    The above are just two bad-reasons for having first elaborated the mischief of manipulating the popular-vote for the specific purposes of one "breed" or another of any population.

    Let's do what the rest of world does and sees as a fair-vote. NO MANIPULATION OF THE POPULAR-VOTING PROCESS!

    Both parties could then operate openly and without "mischievous manipulation" of the voting process. At first, it was to control the nation that was growing fast from the immigration of "extraneous" populations. Now it is to control the voting process to assure that a high-income class of individuals maintain low-taxation in order to make quicker their fortunes, which they pass on to their inheritors benefiting from very low inheritance taxation.

    Any way you look at the voting mischief prevalent in the US, the conclusion comes down to the same factor - "to the winner go the spoils"!

    America should not be run by the "monied winners", especially not with 14% of its population eking out a living below the Poverty Threshold. Yes, of course, we cannot all earn the same income and have a truly functional Economic System.

    But neither should a nation have to put up with such a great Income Disparity:
    [​IMG]

    Remember, the above consists not only of newly rich families, but also those that have been aggregating and bequeathing the fortunes for decades upon decades upon decades.

    Is that what a country should be doing when 14 million live below the Poverty Threshold and a postsecondary degree costs $14K a year in a state school - and its life-span average just went down 1 year*?

    Methinks not ...

    *Largely due to a "plague" of swallowing opioid pills.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  11. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again, there was never intended to be a popular vote so there's no manipulation of the popular vote. Popular vote is nothing more than an opinion poll. Other than that, it's completely meaningless.

    What happened 200 years ago is absolutely consequential today. What most on the left, along with most libertarians, miss is an understanding, described quite well in the Declaration of Independence is the basic nature of liberty and of man.

    By default, by nature, God, or otherwise according to one's belief or choice to claim as source, man is born free. No person, by right of blood or birth, has any right to control another person. Each and every person is born free. So what is government? Who are these people and how in the heck do they think they have power to tell me a thing (libertarians are with me so far but now comes the wrench) ?

    In 1789 the people in what had been the 13 British colonies, voted to accept a proposed constitution, creating the government of the United States as we know it today. The people chose it. They voted for it and it was accepted. By that document and only by that document does the Federal Government exist or have any authority over any State or over me. It is like a homeowners association and its rules. A land owner sells property to a developer. a developer sells to home buyers but puts into the contract that they must accept rules of the association. Those buyers voluntarily accepted the rule and when they sell that rule continues - for 200 years or even more. In the same way, our forefathers voted and accepted to trade some of their absolute liberty for the peace and security of a federal government. Even those whose forefathers were not here in 1789 came voluntarily so, by buying into the American dream, they're bound by the American Constitution.

    Yes, what happened 200 years matters. If you don't like the Constitution, work to change it. Others of us will work to defeat your changes. Hopefully, for the defense of the republic and our form of government, we win and you lose. I'm sure that you're hoping to win and create Utopia. We shall see how it turns out.
     
  12. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Those two things have some of the same words but do not say the same thing any more than these two sentences that have all the same words.
    • The quick brown fox jumped over the back of the lazy dog.
    • The lazy dog jumped over the back of the quick brown fox.
    Once again, we do not have, and the Founders never intended that we have, a government by the whole population or by the eligible members of the state. Our government is a union, federation as it were, of the States. We have a purposely limited (or supposed to be) federal government and all other power retained in the States. What you're describing in the Democracy definition you googled is an all-powerful national government that is supreme in all things to the states because it is powered by the votes of all of the people.
     
  13. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quite wrong. Athenian democracy existed in the 6th century. Unfortunately, the Roman Empire put it to death and even after Rome's demise the notion of a royalty-rule maintained control of land-rights. (The only reason during the Agricultural Age to want to acquire land by war.)

    The notion of fundamental personal-rights gave birth again in the 18th century - when both France and the American colonies overturned the Royal Hegemony that governed them. (Franklin - whilst representing the US to the French King - had many discussions with French dissidents fomenting a revolution against that king. The restaurant in which they met in Paris - Le Procope - to discuss "politics" still exists. Some historians indicate that it was at Le Procope that the French helped him write the American Constitution.)

    The notion that individual-liberty is the fundamental element of any real democracy has existed for centuries. It has taken mankind a long while however to finally get to implementing it in a governmental structure. How that personal liberty is expressed in the formulation of a "national state" or "individual states" may be different. (Europe, for the most part, has a legislature but no senate. But it has no National State, though it does have a national-Congress that passes laws.)

    Regardless, the fundamental aspect of any democratic state existing today is the accent upon individual liberty to elect one's representatives to a national-assembly (our Congress) to make laws - which is ultimately defined in a set of basic laws we call a "Constitution". And national laws are established by an elected Congress consonant with its Constitution - as occasionally decided by a Supreme Court.

    Where America got it wrong from the get-go is to assume that states should determine how presidents were elected. This was an historical mishmash that existed uniquely because of the North/South divide over slavery. The Electoral College's idiotic "first-past-the-post-takes-all-votes" rule was invented here to assure that southern states - fearing greatly that the northern states would want to "free the south of its slaves" - had a countervailing manipulated presidential voting-power that their population-votes alone could not obtain! (Regardless of which the south decided to secede from the Union.)

    And two centuries later we have seen what that gets "we-the-sheeple". Five times in history has the presidential voting-system got it wrong by electing the LOSER of the popular-vote! (And this last time with an individual who is paranoiac*). Moreover, gerrymandering manipulates voting borders to also manipulate outcomes.

    Enough is enough ... !

    *From the NYT and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard (see here):





     
  14. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bollocks again.

    Franklin (once ambassador to France in the 1770s) was discussing the right to vote a country's leaders with the French in Paris. It was the very essence of any notion of a pragmatic democracy. It was here in Paris that he honed his notion by the debate of a "real-democracy" devoid of any key central-power (a King or Dictator) and later convinced his fellow Founding-fathers of the necessary key ideas when writing the Constitution.

    And the act of voting was never far from the hearts of those who concocted (wrongly) the voting process. They did not have the same sense of personal honesty as we do today. After-all, any manipulation of the popular-vote detracts from the very essence of any democracy. So, the reason they indulged in doing so was to assure that they WIN an election. (Nice foresight, but ethically awful.)

    Today the popular-vote is of primary importance in any Real Democracy on earth - and should not be manipulated. Which is the case in Europe (a far greater population than the US) having seen what political madness it accomplishes in the US ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  15. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They say the same damn thing!

    Only YOU want to change the meanings to suit your puerile purposes. Call the US a union if you like - it's old hat from the 19th century. But, what it is in reality is an economic-mechanism that suits the prime necessity of any large community. That is, Supply&Demand.

    Isn't it amazing that all-the-states genuflect to that need? And benefit as well from the fact that what people buy in the local stores very often comes from other places in the US. But, who cares? Right?

    So, why do YOU care if a state (for you) has the character of a "nation" (with its own laws) that has supreme-rights that are greater than the combined entity? They don't. States are just miniature geographic designations that happen to have their own legislatures for purposes of their own particular needs.

    Once one gets beyond those needs, it is the national-legislature that prevails. That is how all tripartite governance work: A head of state and a Legislature and a Judiciary. Each with their own limits of power and (hopefully) checks&balances.

    Because without the checks&balances, any state (national or local) could fall into the abyss of non-conformance with the whole (upon which all states depend for economic security).

    Or, as some put it, succinctly: The whole is greater than just the sum of its parts* ...

    *And Aristotle is probably turning over in his grave to see me repeat it! Unfortunately, his notions on Supply&Demand were limited.




    • The quick brown fox jumped over the back of the lazy dog.
    • The lazy dog jumped over the back of the quick brown fox.
    Once again, we do not have, and the Founders never intended that we have, a government by the whole population or by the eligible members of the state. Our government is a union, federation as it were, of the States. We have a purposely limited (or supposed to be) federal government and all other power retained in the States. What you're describing in the Democracy definition you googled is an all-powerful national government that is supreme in all things to the states because it is powered by the votes of all of the people.[/QUOTE]
     
  16. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male

    To clarify my position: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

    https://electoralvotemap.com/a-brief-electoral-college-history/
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  17. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Moot points conflated with your supposition and conjecture do not a fact or logical conclusion make. Here are some clarifications for your understanding as to how and why the electoral college exists and why it's no longer relevant.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...ege-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

    https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  18. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what you fail to understand is that we are nation of peoples first, and members of states secondly. The nation is far more important both economically and physically than "states" - no state confers to newborns the title of American national when you ask for the identification of a passport.

    Pro-statists have been pushing the same meek palaver since the dawn of time. It didn't make sense then (that state-rights had any particular predominant advantage over national-rights as decided by Congress and the Executive head-of-government) and it makes so sense now.

    States democratically elected legislatures and a governor run matters relating to the states - only matters relating to states. When matters of individual life-rights are predominant then any proposed law must be national in nature.

    That is the present conundrum with birthrights today. Does the woman have the right to terminate her pregnancy before a given date or not at all? Some states, genuflecting at a religious altar, say the former should be law because of the ten-commandments. Once again, religion is poking its nose where it never belonged!

    And, actually, in that particular matter they don't. The rights of such matters (of life and death) belong to Congress to design and pass into law - not states ... !

    PS: And in that regard, neither state nor Federal courts have the right to impose death sentences upon the individual. Frankly, passing one's entire life in prison is hell-enough for anyone who commits murder. The human being is reduced to a vegetative existence.
     
  19. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male

    You're responding to an excerpt of your own previous response. This is what I wrote: Moot points conflated with your supposition and conjecture do not a fact or logical conclusion make. Here are some clarifications for your understanding as to how and why the electoral college exists and why it's no longer relevant.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...ege-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

    https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  20. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the electoral voter IS NOT MANDATED TO DECLARE THEIR VOTE ONCE THEY ENTER THE VOTING BOOTH, there is no way to guarantee that they truthfully voted to reflect the popular vote of their state. they have the right of privacy of their vote just like any regular voting citizen. Hence, another reason why the electoral vote should be abolished.
     
  21. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    In no way does your statement prove or even indicate mine is wrong. In fact, your statement doesn't address mine. Here's the logic:

    Me: We were never intended to be a democracy; the states elect the president.
    You: You're wrong because democracy existed in the 6th century.

    May as well have been:

    Me: We were never intended to be a democracy; the states elect the president.
    You: You're wrong because ripe lemons are yellow.


    On original intent, there can be no gray area. The intent and the Constitution are both quite clear. On original intent there is only those who understand it and those who do not; those who are correct, and those who are wrong. It's binary.

    Even so, as you demonstrate in this latter quoted section from your post, you can have your preference on how government should work, or shouldn't work, and I can have my preference. This is a difference of opinion. We can have different opinions but we cannot have different facts.

    Hundreds of millions of dead people lived in countries where majorities ruled and those majorities preferred socialism or communism. In millions and millions of instances, a group of wolves and a deer, or lions and a deer, or other carnivore and other meat, get together and democratically decide what to have for dinner. The majority always wins. The minority always loses.

    It's not that our Constitution or the ideas of the Founders are 200 years out of date; it's that they were 200 years ahead of their time. The Constitution and the ideas of the Founders were intentionally and explicitly created for times like this.
     
  22. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Interestingly, just this morning, the Supreme Court has accepted a case that asks that very question. We'll get their "opinion on the matter this summer.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  23. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Your post here demonstrates leftist-originalism. The left regularly claims the Constitution is a living document and original intent has no standing in constitutional arguments. In those cases where they can't assign new meaning to old words then they will simply say the Constitution is dated and the Founders were wrong. When neither of those tactics work for them, and they must finally consider original intent, they take the parts of the writings or discussions of the Founders that didn't make it into the Constitution.

    When trying to assign the intent of the Founders to the Constitution, it is important to take only those parts that actually did make it into the Constitution. A good way to keep yourself on track in that regard is to start with the Constitution and then identify the words of the Founders that support it or explain their intent or meaning. That one of the Founders had beef on Friday does not mean that it was the intent of the Founders that we all have beef on Friday. Had they put it into the Constitution, we'd all be eating fish on Friday.
     
  24. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    [/QUOTE]

    Aristotle's statement is philosophical but is neither scientific nor legal. And he can roll in his grave all you want him to, whether the sum is, or is not, greater than the whole is not in the Constitution. This is in the Constitution:

    This, along with the limited power granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, define a nation that is NOT the sum of its parts; it's the union of the parts. In both New York vs United States and in Printz vs United States, The Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that Federal law exceeded their constitutional authority and, therefore, violated the 10th Amendment.

    Of course, the two points are redundant. If the Government exceeds its constitutional authority it must already be challenged and stopped - 10th Amendment or not. The importance of the 10th is that is that it demonstrates the intent of the Founders to, very clearly, make it clear that you are wrong in your assertion that the national government is inherently superior to the States.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  25. Levant

    Levant Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    You're wrong. In 1789, Americans were citizens first, and foremost, of their respective state, not of the nation. You seem to be trying to apply the laws, governments, history, of all of the rest of the world to the laws, government, history, of the United States. It is that our laws, government, and history, are NOT that of the rest of the world that makes the United States exceptional and, even today, the place where the rest of the world wants to be.

    I assume that this diversion means you admit that you have no other defensible logic with which to defend your dissatisfaction with the results of the 2016 presidential election. I'm not going to divert this thread or forum to arguments on abortion; the forum owners have, thankfully, given us a different place to discuss that. I'll meet you there with a quote of your post.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
    Lil Mike likes this.

Share This Page