Donald Trump wants to be a dictator ...

The debate about "rights" is immense.

Already, you don't understand that in a fair and impartial democracy, ONLY the popular-vote should decide electoral office. In the US, that happens mostly every vote for political office; with the HIGHLY SINGULAR exception of the presidency. Had votes in all states been simply reported to Congress, rather than manipulated by the WINNER TAKES ALL RULE, Hillary would be PotUS today.

But, that would not have pleased you apparently. So you are perfectly-well with the manipulation of the presidential popular-vote. Because it helps conservative states decide tight elections. That, sir, is wholly UNFAIR.

Why not? After all, the states can decide wholly whatever they want. That is the sentiment that you seem to want to convery.

You need not worry. Public Sentiment right now is on your side. It hasn't been historically, but it is for now.

Before 2012, sentiment was two-thirds to do away with the Electoral College. But, something has happened since to sway preferences:


Feel better now that you can sleep nights... ? ;^)

 

No, not really. Manipulate that rule, and a country loses all sense of common virtue or electoral decency. Overt manipulation of the popular-vote is a manifestation of wilful desire to predetermine voting outcomes. (And, yes, both parties do it in America if they can*.)

Meaning that's the way "consequences justify the means to obtain them" Aint no Real Democracy on earth that believes that sentiment - and the US is the ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON EARTH that openly manipulates the popular-vote by means of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College ..

*In fact, it is patently obvious that if both parties wanted a fair voting outcomes, they could both sit down to determine impartial voting boundaries in each state.

 

More at...dicKtator!

 

Emperor Trump fanfiction is the best fanfiction.

So deliciously dystopian.

 

Claiming Trump wants to be a dictator is just as silly as those who claimed Obama wanted to be a dictator.

 

Specious argumentation. We've got a number of serious errors in our "system of republican democracy" devised in an age when that idea was just a notion in the heads of a handful of Americans who wanted to detach the colonies from an English kingdom. It was the first-effort of any kind to do that in a world where kingdoms were common.

the notions of both a republic and a democracy were purely intellectual at the end of the 18th century. And the notion of changing the political system was being hotly debated in only two geographies on earth. France and the English colonies.

Our manner of electing a PotUS is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR because of a political mistake made at the very beginning of our democracy in devising the Electoral College. Never ever should that institution be based upon a "winner-take-all" voting rule, which clearly is fundamentally unfair, unjust, undemocratic and therefore unacceptable.

We should fix those errors. Namely the voting manipulations of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering by which state authorities "carve out" voting districts to suit whichever of the two dominant parties.

And until those matters are attended to, our democracy is and remains bad-joke of a political system ...

 

Some level of "gerrymandering" is pretty much required for a couple of very basic reasons:

1) Federal law requires congressional districts require districts be as close to the same population as possible. That means districts are going to have to inevitably "wind around" in order to accommodate where people have chosen to live.

2) Courts have repeatedly required "black supermajority" districts in order to ensure a certain number of black congress people. That inevitably gives districts odd configurations.

Want to do away with black supermajority districts and I'll support you 100%.

 

Winner takes all is not federal but a State issue since it is up to each State to determine how their elections work. What you want to eliminate is the minority protection for states that the EC provides. Winner takes all is not unjust or unfair since the winner of the state determines which official is elected by the state.

 

If a black cannot be elected in a predominantly white district, then that says a LOT about our sense of "equality" amongst races.

Still, gerrymandering districts for black does not help other races (Central American, Jewish, Indian).

Righting a wrong with another wrong is never the best means ...

 

Did I post that? I swear I don't recall posting that, and I can't find what post of mine you quoted.

 

I did.

 

Okay, I guess some wires got crossed. Dadgum intertoobs.

Get off my lawn!

 

BS!!! The president and the president alone has the power to declare martial law. And he can do it for just about any reason he wants. We have always depended on the integrity of the leadership to avoid a hostile action by a US president. And we had a Congress with integrity.

But those days are gone. And trump has made a career of abusing his power and the law.

Don't be so incredibly naive and gullible.

I know people who aren't even political who are ready to get their guns and fight a war to remove trump. Even they see the threat. Trumper stupidity will be the death of the country. Just watch. They will back him no matter what he does.

Did you really think you could put scum in the white house and not have consequences for that? Did you really think you can put any crook in office, no matter how subhuman he may be, and everything will be okay? Well, you were DEAD wrong. And god help us all.

 

Worked okay before.

 

Some people either never took a Civics Class or have long since forgot whatever they learned.

You seem to be a prime example - from here:

In the instances mentioned above, when presidents did get into battles all-by-themselves, they required approval from the HofR and the Senate, for continued funding.

And God has nothing to do with it ...!

 

I'm not surprised. I would expect no less from a Putin Puppet.

 

"Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”"

Good thing we have a representative republic.

 

I don't see the necessity of quoting anybody from that period about Democracy Today. There attention was driven by the necessity to rid themselves of a British king occupying/ruling the American colonies.

That was two centuries ago! And nobody on earth had the faintest idea of how a republican democracy should work, because all European countries were kingdoms. There was a lot of discussion nonetheless; and if you ever get to Paris go to the restaurant called "Le Procope" which is where "democracy" was discussed by Franklin and Jefferson with their French counterparts. (I would LOVE to know who was doing the translating!)

Nonetheless, as history would have it, the French Revolution turned out to be a disaster. Two decades later Napoleon walked into the ruins and made himself "Emperor" in order to avoid any reference to the past "kingdom" that ruled France.

The United States went off in another direction, but nonetheless made two horrendous mistakes. The first being the Electoral College with its winner-take-all accounting that destroys the popular-vote, and the second being Gerrymandering that was first employed in Massachusetts (by its Governor Gerry) in 1812.

There is NO JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE for either manipulation of the popular-vote, which is the sole and ultimate voting-ethic of a truly Democratic Republic ...

 

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me ...

 

What representative republic?

The one warped by Gerrymandering and manipulated by the Electoral College, both devised in 1812, when most people hadn't the foggiest notion of what constitutes a True Democracy.

So, what really is a True Democracy?

It's a country that has NO MANIPULATION WHATSOEVER OF THE POPULAR-VOTE IN ORDER TO FAVOR ONE OR THE OTHER PARTY IN AN ESSENTIALLY TWO-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM!

Is that too complex a notion for you (plural) who believe that Might Is Right?

Apparently ...

 

I don't care that Trump "wants" to be a dictator. It's a sign of an alpha wolf ego, at most. I want to be one too. I also want to be a rock star and a defensive back in the NFL.

Nothing will come of either my or Trump's supposed fantasies.

The left apparently wants the hot cocoa pajama boy in the white house.

Yecchhh!

 

Life's imperfect. Put on your pj's and have some cocoa. We'll rap about health care.

 

That's a spurious response if I have ever seen one.

We are debating about THE foundation stone of our republican democracy. And you counter with "Life's imperfect"?

As if the matter was of piddling importance. Well, imo, you got that one very, very wrong ...

 

As I've already told you, a purely popular vote would allow a political party giving away the most free stuff to attract enough poor immigrants to the area of the handouts to win every election and make the rest of the country pay for those freebies.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

 

I was referring to the author of the article.