" early voting dumps'"

IOW, reporting the numerical results of early voting is suspect.

But ONLY in places Trump lost, of course.

" The physical numbers in Congress may be "five or six" and they are "relegated to that group in the corner over there," but their progressive ideas swept the US on Tuesday"

That's got to be the dumbest analysis I've ever read. Swept???

So ... 5-6 will hold sway in a 60-seat majority?!? Do you know ANYTHING about Congressional politics and how Washington works???

Their power will be shown by the worthless committees they'll populate.

" How do smaller states have more power Proportionally they get less ec votes"

California residents get one Senator per 20 million residents. Wyoming residents get one Senator per 300 thousand residents.

Also, in a close election, a state like Nebraska might sway the outcome due to the EC. But with a National Majority, there are Counties that would be more valuable to the candidate than Nebraska. And if the result was actually close ... God help us, there'd be a lawsuit in every voting precinct in America.

So a half dozen posts, and you still can't answer the two most basic questions.

You're a poseur. Enjoy Plonksville, WOB.

"How's a voter in Delaware or Wyoming gonna get alienated when the popular vote wins the White House?"

Candidates can harvest more voters elsewhere. It's easier to increase turnout in CA than claim a larger percentage of DE or WY. In that case, why would candidates cater to any of the least populous states?

In fact, it'll become more lucrative to LOSE in CA than WIN in WY and DE.

Swing states will cease being swing states. And, as I referenced, a close election could trigger lawsuits in any-and-every precinct in America.

"If the Chargers win, I hope they know how to act about."

They'll flood the field, and tear down the goalposts!

"a state when it ruled against marriage equality."

The fact you keep calling it equality proves you don't understand the issues involved. The second, third and fourth wives get NONE of the rights and protections; not from the federal government, and not from the state. They CAN be forced to testify against their "husband". They don't have unlimited gifting rights. They don't have first refusal of an industrial pension. Etc, etc, etc.

Utah couldn't rule on "marriage equality" because no law has been passed creating polygamy. All the case did was uphold the fact the law only recognizes the first wife.

And pointed out the others can co-habitate as they choose.

"You do raise legitimate questions about how plural marriage would affect survivor benefits and competing spousal claims. That is something that would need to be worked out"

14,000 advantages would have to be worked out. And the multiples of permutations and possibilities. Get on it...if you're really serious. You realize, I hope, you have to have the laws IN PLACE by the time it's made legal.

And I'll support any good, fair plan you've got.

"quoting an ultra-conservative state when it ruled against marriage equality"

There was no equality to be found.

Law recognizes the first wife as legitimate, everywhere. No state recognizes multiple marriage. Utah merely found no grounds to forbid cohabitation.

Let me boil this down: There is no way to grant superseding rights to multiple people, BY DEFINITION.

"you've demonstrated you're not arguing in good faith"

I asked two direct questions, which go directly to the heart of the matter. Easy questions, despite the fact we still have 13,998 more to go.

Again, I'm not against polygamy. I'm against idiots who pretend they're for it without addressing the needed tenets.

We're going to continue to commit voter fraud until you ADMIT voter fraud exists.
~Today's MAGA

====

This might be a good time to remind folks: according to the Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud website, the most common reason given for voter fraud, when one is given, is I was convinced the other side was doing it.

IOW, the folks who lie about ballot efficacy deserve a lion's share of the blame.

"So, when is shrimptacodan gonna come along and explain all of this happening in his beloved BLUE Texas"

Right after he apologizes for lying about Tallarico going to a mental health center.

I have my calendar marked for the 12th...of Never.

" Trump doesn't need a monument. He barely needs a tombstone."

Then how would we piss on his grave?

So ... what, five posts with no answers at all?!?

You're not really interested in rights, are you?

Your sole achievement is throwing wrenches, on a topic you clearly don't understand.

"I can see you're having a lot of fun down there."

I always enjoy pointing and laughing, especially at morons. And particularly when they can't directly answer a direct question, and tap dance instead.

What a riot!

" that completely undermines your argument and proves my point about you."

What a riot.

Your reaction was the exact same last time we went around on this topic. You were never interested in rights, just at throwing a wrench into equality debates, as if not supporting something without a single law was the same as not supporting equality.

You were an idiot then, and couldn't come up with a single law.

I see you haven't learned anything since.

" If you really were for extending the rights, you'd be willing to do at least *some* of the legwork yourself like you did for gays"

I absolutely did, especially by pointing out how same-sex marriage is about the exact same issues of superseding rights, while polygamy requires an entire canon of new laws addressing proportional rights.

Meanwhile, you still can't come up with a single new law, and instead, bitch at the truth of the matter.

" Keep digging, DanFroth."

I notice you skipped over addressing the facts, and went straight to ad hominem.

Truly, GFY moron. You couldn't come up with an answer last time either.

" the exact language people used (and some still use) about same-sex couples as well as transgendered individuals."

What a riot. I literally used the words the state of Utah used when addressing the issue of polygamy, dumfuq.

"this tool has been predicting a civil war for the last 20 years."

He sees it as his Days of Glory.

Day One: kill every liberal who ever disagreed with him ... including folks like my wife and I.

Day Two: Fragged by his own men, since he resembled "the enemy".

"Just make it a popular vote."

Remember Florida in 2000?

A close election would unleash 100,000 Floridas, since victory might be found in ANY hamlet.

Might as well call it what it is: The Lawyer's Full Employment Act.

"I listen to them and (the progressives) have no actual solutions."

You listened?!?

Via what sources?

"Looks like we've struck a nerve."

Rank stupidity always gets that reaction from me.

"you're just as much of a bigot as those who described same-sex couples as "play acting""

That's a lie.

I was at the forefront of the equality movement, always pointing out my wife and I got over 14,000 protections and advantages the moment we said "I do", while gays were being treated as second-class citizens.

Why lie???

For example, I'll give you the easiest issues of all.

Husband has been with wife #one for 30 years, wife, #two for 20 years, wife #three for 10 years, and now is marrying a fourth time.

What proportion of rights does the fourth wife get upon marriage? Full rights, or a proportion based on length of marriage?

Next question: how do you break up one man's Social Security benefit with four widows?

"You're entitled to your opinions, but you can't hide the fact that you're just as much of a bigot"

GFY.

Same-sex marriage fits like a glove inside current marriage rules, since the rights and issues are exactly the same.

Meanwhile, poly marriages would have to have an entirely new canon of laws written, all based on PROPORTIONAL rights.

Supporters are willing to flap their gums, but NO ONE has even proposed the first law. I'm all for extending the rights; now let's see some legwork instead of just lip service.

"The Electoral College can't be eliminated soon enough."

Why would voters in small states vote to become irrelevant?!?

They'd immediately become flyovers. Why campaign in NH or VT if you can just run up the totals in CA?