On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:52:30 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we
don't think it's a good idea for this country.

Bear in mind that I voted for the loser in this race, and I still
think the Electoral College is important and desirable.

Anything other than 1 vote per person means you think some people are more important than others.

--
If you refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor, you may be a Muslim.