|
On August 06 2010 06:25 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 05:42 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. And we should legalize em all, what do you care ? and even if you do, why you and a bunch of other people being against something makes it wrong ? Actually as I wrote my post I thought about the fact that there is definitely a small group of people who really do support legalizing anything that doesn't involve 1 person non-consensually doing something to another individual. But the fact is that that group is not significant enough to affect the country (or any country in the history of the world for that matter). But every society that has existed has made rules or laws at least in part based on what they see as right. I don't think that is likely to change. So we are left with the state we are always in where groups form and pick and choose and debate what is right and wrong and laws flux with societal change. Its definitely possible that gay marriage will be legalized across the board someday but it will be due to deep societal change. But the fact that society is shifting right now does not mean that 1 side should completely stop advocating and let 100% of the advocating be done by the other side. So..let both sides advocate and argue, then let the voters decide it. They did...at least for now. But now the goal is to supplant the decision of 7 million voters with a judge's ruling. Doing that really solves the problem forever doesn't it? Just look at how that ended all the conflict around abortion... Its a hard and terrible thing to try to cram controversial things down voters' throats through judges' rulings.
Unlike the sanitized fantasy Hollywood and our shitty high school history textbooks would like to believe, progress usually happens with most of the country dragging far behind, kicking and screaming. Most people resist change for no real reason other than just keep the status quo. Nostalgia makes most people look backwards towards tradition and "how things used to be" more positively than how it actually was in reality. Memory tends to fade out the bad things.
People who don't hold a high enough standard for reasoning and progress can be subconsciously manipulated by the ideas of the family and community they were raised in and never end up truly questioning them. People maybe modify and build on those beliefs, but it is very hard to really radical change in the believes of the concept system that they developed in. Hence, most people resist changes at a gut level, more at the emotional level that was laid down when they were impressionable, and then seek to find reasons to justify this core feeling.
|
On August 06 2010 07:26 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:22 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 07:19 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:12 D10 wrote:
Prostitutes are the world oldest profession, who are you to claim it should remain outlawed ? illegality was only done to control them and try to enforce moral values that should never have made their way to the legislative process, not to inhibit them.
Woman should have every right to get banged for a buck in a safe way paying their taxes like everyone else.
Same thing with drug dealers/users, what reason could you have other than fear and ignorance to enforce marginalization on something like weed, and let alcohol and tobbaco remain legal ?
Mmm Prostitution is not only highly dangerous proffession and can either get you AIDS/HIV's and thus pass on to another person, but I highly doubt anyone ever grew up wanting to be a prostitute. They do it out of desperation. Yeah, being a King is one of the world's oldest professions too. Doesn't mean we should have one leading our country. About drugs, that's a whole different topic. I myself am Indifferent about whether it should be legal or not and I definitely don't think it should become a mini-topic in here. So let's ignore that. Royalty is not a profession, since I cannot start being one tomorrow if I wanted too. edit: also here in Brazil, any high level brothel is gonna show you all DST exams of the hooker done weekly so you are sure you are fucking a high quality product, also they always use protection. edit2: what about porn stars, are they legal in the US ? It's good you know everything about hookers. And yes, some people would sadly want to be porn stars. -.-. You don't need to be royal to be a king, you can "become royal" by taking ownership. The basic point would/does remain the same.
I totally want to be a porn star. It's very conducive to my goals. I don't think there's anything sad about it and I'm definitely not desperate. I also work in the "sex industry" (pro-domme) because I legitimately enjoy doing it. The boring ass "day job" is what I could do without. While what I do *is* legal, I have to take many of the same precautions as escorts due to similar social stigmas.
As far as I'm concerned, adult consent should be the basis of social law.
|
On August 06 2010 13:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 13:46 blastedt wrote:On August 05 2010 06:15 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:
He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs If you believe in Democracy, that's pretty much the purest form of it... The Constitution of the US was designed specifically to protect the rights of the minorities, unlike true democracy. The Constitution was designed specifically to create a stronger federal government that all states could accept. It was a political document. Protecting the rights of minorities? Prior to 1868? That's preposterous.
Minorities like Rich People, Folks-With-The-Wrong-Religion, and That Guy Joe We Hate. Obviously black people didn't count.
|
On August 06 2010 13:53 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 13:46 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 12:59 Mindcrime wrote:On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? ... The president is already elected by elected representatives. You're speaking of the Electoral College who virtually all electors abide by. Could you restate that in English?
You're speaking of the Electoral College where virtually all electors abide by.
No need to get snippy over one grammatical issue.
|
If this case reaches the supreme court before other cases, I predict an 8-1 decision of the supreme court in favor of gay marriage.
Ted Olsen and David Boies are arguing the anti-prop 8 case. Both are Gods of litigation, but Olsen in particular, is outstanding, especially at oral argument.
On the other hand, Charles J. Cooper, representing the pro-prop 8 case, is a brilliant civil litigator... His arguments in this case, however, were too expansive; and the oral arguments were borderline pathetic, imo. It almost seemed as if he was intentionally blowing it, but that is speculation.
If the cases didn't have such lopsided representation I would say it is a toss-up.
Prop 8 at its core says: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The counter-argument is a constitutional 'equal protection' claim - the laws should apply equally to gays and straights.
The pro-argument - gay and straight men and women each have equal access to marriage. The law simply requires you marry a person of the opposite sex.
|
So is it just me or would it be hilarious if the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and therefore would be making gay marriage legal in America thus making super religious Mormons in California indirectly responsible for gay marriage reaching legality in the states?
Also, just from browsing this thread, gay marriage will come about the same way any civil rights issue comes about, with the majority of people opposing it and the courts having to force it on us until we like it. Segregation and Jim Crow laws really weren't that long ago guys, but we still have racists.
|
On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country?
It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody.
|
On August 06 2010 15:17 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country? It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody.
You respond the way any half decent parent would and just explain to them that some people are like that and that most people are not. Just that people are different. I don't see what else would be needed. That's all my mom told me, and I got the idea pretty easily. Just kinda like "Oh, ok."
|
People deciding to get married has nothing to do with me. I'm sure the flower arrangers, the wedding dress stores and catering services etc would appreciate the business though. Allowing this would create a few more jobs for people. Sure some religious groups will go emo and not get involved in being a part of ceremonies for those couples but that's their problem.
|
On August 06 2010 14:39 Number41 wrote:
If this case reaches the supreme court before other cases, I predict an 8-1 decision of the supreme court in favor of gay marriage.
Ted Olsen and David Boies are arguing the anti-prop 8 case. Both are Gods of litigation, but Olsen in particular, is outstanding, especially at oral argument.
On the other hand, Charles J. Cooper, representing the pro-prop 8 case, is a brilliant civil litigator... His arguments in this case, however, were too expansive; and the oral arguments were borderline pathetic, imo. It almost seemed as if he was intentionally blowing it, but that is speculation.
I think that is extremely unlikely. I would actually expect the court (as it is composed right now) to overturn this current ruling and then include some "middle road" language.
Also, the Supreme Court doesn't make decisions based on the brilliancy of a lawyer's oral argument. They pretty much already know what they think and eloquence isn't going to change their minds.
|
On August 06 2010 15:17 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country? It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody.
Sixty years ago someone asked "What happens when my theoretical kid sees a black man married to a white woman and asks me if she can marry the black man down the street? What happens when my kids hear about black men marrying white women in school? ... A ruling like this affects everybody"
How absurd does this sound? How wrong does it sound? Don't you think in another sixty years what you wrote will sound just as wrong as what I wrote?
I for one cannot wait till the day my six year old boy wants to marry his best friend or my daughter has a doll family with her best friend and we all find it as cute as the little couple in their 3 foot suit and 2 foot five dress at a wedding
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 06 2010 14:39 Number41 wrote:
If this case reaches the supreme court before other cases, I predict an 8-1 decision of the supreme court in favor of gay marriage.
Ted Olsen and David Boies are arguing the anti-prop 8 case. Both are Gods of litigation, but Olsen in particular, is outstanding, especially at oral argument.
On the other hand, Charles J. Cooper, representing the pro-prop 8 case, is a brilliant civil litigator... His arguments in this case, however, were too expansive; and the oral arguments were borderline pathetic, imo. It almost seemed as if he was intentionally blowing it, but that is speculation.
If the cases didn't have such lopsided representation I would say it is a toss-up.
Prop 8 at its core says: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The counter-argument is a constitutional 'equal protection' claim - the laws should apply equally to gays and straights.
The pro-argument - gay and straight men and women each have equal access to marriage. The law simply requires you marry a person of the opposite sex.
8-1? Lol if only. Who's the 1? Scalia?
If the Conservatives want to, they could definitely get cert for the case. The problem would be ensuring Kennedy's vote for their side, which is tenuous at best, especially considering the groundwork that's been laid. A more likely course of action would just be to deny cert to the case. But that's years off anyway, and certainly not something to be worried about right now.
|
Lol. People are still trying to prevent gays from seeing each other when one of them is dying in a hospital?
Fail.
|
On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:
The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge.
How does the judges sexuality effect the case? Are you inferring that his own orientation would bias his decision? A straight judge would have the opposite bias in this instance.
I highly recommend you read the transcripts of the case, it's very enlightening. The Pro-8 side basically destroyed their own case, failed to provide a decent argument, and got crushed by the prosecution. Tyranny of the majority may be possible within a democratic system, but that doesn't make it morally defensible.
On August 06 2010 17:48 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 14:39 Number41 wrote:
If this case reaches the supreme court before other cases, I predict an 8-1 decision of the supreme court in favor of gay marriage.
Ted Olsen and David Boies are arguing the anti-prop 8 case. Both are Gods of litigation, but Olsen in particular, is outstanding, especially at oral argument.
On the other hand, Charles J. Cooper, representing the pro-prop 8 case, is a brilliant civil litigator... His arguments in this case, however, were too expansive; and the oral arguments were borderline pathetic, imo. It almost seemed as if he was intentionally blowing it, but that is speculation.
If the cases didn't have such lopsided representation I would say it is a toss-up.
Prop 8 at its core says: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The counter-argument is a constitutional 'equal protection' claim - the laws should apply equally to gays and straights.
The pro-argument - gay and straight men and women each have equal access to marriage. The law simply requires you marry a person of the opposite sex.
8-1? Lol if only. Who's the 1? Scalia? If the Conservatives want to, they could definitely get cert for the case. The problem would be ensuring Kennedy's vote for their side, which is tenuous at best, especially considering the groundwork that's been laid. A more likely course of action would just be to deny cert to the case. But that's years off anyway, and certainly not something to be worried about right now.
The biggest fear is that SCOTUS will see the case before Scalia’s shriveled black heart stop beating. Otherwise, it's a toss up 4/5 decision along party lines...
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The general population is unfit to make legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your typical liberal argument. We the people are too stupid, too naive, too uneducated to make any decisions based on traditions and sometimes even common sense for that matter. Therefore, we the people need some government overlord, in this case, a judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong. The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge. This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? Show nested quote +
Legislating is a full time job that requires hundreds of staffers to read, do research and summarize positions. General citizens are unfit to pass legislation because they have other jobs and do not have hundreds of staffers. You do not pass legislation based off of common sense, because common sense doesn't actually exist. Good public policy is supported by data and continually monitored. Law is also difficult to read and must be interpreted (contrary to popular, misled belief), which is a skill that generally takes years of training to acquire.
This is the short and polite way of saying you're wrong. If you want to get into a discussion on republicanism or an institutional perspective of the legislative process or discretionary vs. statutory policy, I'd be glad to instruct you further.
If you believe a simple, moralistic decision to determine if same-sex marriage should be legal in your state is on the hands of legislators, then please also give up your right to vote in the forthcoming elections to your beloved legislators. It's not a moralistic or simplistic decision. There's a Constitutional argument that it should be allowed in all states, and in fact, when DoMA is finally taken to the Supreme Court, it will be legally recognized in all states. Obviously those decisions are way too complex for the average person to comprehend. Hardly. Choosing talent is different than exercising it.
There's a ridiculous belief among uneducated people that direct democracy is a good thing. It's not. You select legislators for a reason and they select experts/bureaucrats to carry out policy. There's shortcomings, but it beats most other systems, especially direct democracy.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 15:10 overt wrote:
So is it just me or would it be hilarious if the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and therefore would be making gay marriage legal in America thus making super religious Mormons in California indirectly responsible for gay marriage reaching legality in the states?
Also, just from browsing this thread, gay marriage will come about the same way any civil rights issue comes about, with the majority of people opposing it and the courts having to force it on us until we like it. Segregation and Jim Crow laws really weren't that long ago guys, but we still have racists.
It depends on who takes it there. There's been a potential case from MA for years now, but it would require the state, not citizens, to sue the federal government thus making same-sex marriage legally recognized in all states. The problem is the state hasn't done it yet. It's a pretty open and shut case though.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 17:17 Savio wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court doesn't make decisions based on the brilliancy of a lawyer's oral argument. They pretty much already know what they think and eloquence isn't going to change their minds.
I'm not sure that's true at all.
|
On August 06 2010 23:01 Jibba wrote:
There's a ridiculous belief among uneducated people that direct democracy is a good thing. It's not.
Most people dunno there's more than one type of democracy o__O
I particularly liked seeing all the image caps of twitter bigots yelling how they voted for the law and the judge overturning it is unconstitutional.
|
On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge.
A federal judge took a stand against the ridiculous notion (which you seem to share) that the majority should be allowed to oppress a minority.
|
On August 06 2010 14:33 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 13:53 Mindcrime wrote:On August 06 2010 13:46 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 12:59 Mindcrime wrote:On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? ... The president is already elected by elected representatives. You're speaking of the Electoral College who virtually all electors abide by. Could you restate that in English? You're speaking of the Electoral College where virtually all electors abide by. No need to get snippy over one grammatical issue.
That does not make any more sense.
In any case, if you really wanted the American people to directly elect the president, you wouldn't be defending the electoral college on the grounds that it's "close enough".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
