Discussion in 'Current Events' started by LoneStarGal, Feb 19, 2020.
Your party doesn't choose it's nominee based on the popular vote.
If you want somebody as President of the United States who comprises all of the 'attributes' of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Tammy Baldwin, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, be sure and vote for Amy Klobuchar!
What is it about the urban, Upper-Midwestern part of the country that makes it produce creatures like these...?
Three worms in a rotten, hyperliberal apple. 'Zany Amy', Baldwin, and that other 'thing'....
When have we picked a nominee who got fewer votes?
LOL - I see what you did there...
By "we" you mean the Democrat Party? According to this wiki, it hasn't happened yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...lost_the_popular_vote#1888:_Benjamin_Harrison
Anyway, the fact remains that the Electoral College is as much a part of our Constitution as any of the rest of it. If you don't like the Electoral College, amend the Constitution! It's been done TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES already... so, go for it! If it's such a wonderful idea, you should have no trouble pulling this off very quickly!
. "Naw, I'd rather just mope around and bitch about it all day instead...."
After watching this awful debate the only question is whether Trump will win 47 or 48 states.
Bloomberg’s manipulated debate video earns Four Pinocchios
When you vote in an election, you are voting for which elector is sent to the EC. Vote Republican, the Republican elector goes. Vote Democrat, the Democrat one goes. However, in all but 2 states, they have in place rules that require all electors to follow the popular vote in that state. This is why you get the crazy results like California. Where 2/3 of counties vote one way, but the biggest cities have such a large population that they swing the entire state the other.
And myself, I do not give a damn which way it swings. I believe each and every elector is only responsible to those that voted for them, and should be allowed to vote that way. But in the "all vote the majority" system, they are not allowed to do that. And yes, in most states that is the law. An elector that votes against the way their state decides can face both civil penalties, as well as the state simply declaring their vote is nullified and their status as an elector is revoked.
You often get one or two, but if enough electors were to go against a state, then that state would simply nullify their votes, and give them fines. And likely revoke their ability to ever become an elector again.
Why not all 57?
We are a Republic for a reason. The "Founding Fathers" had a great distrust of Democracy, believing it is little different from mob rule. The idea is that while the framework is Democratic, it is the Republic implementation that preserves the rights and liberties for everybody.
In a Democracy, 1 vote can strip away all kinds of rights. That is the main reason we have 2 houses in Congress. One, which is delegated by population and the most populous states get the most say. And in the other, each state has equal say regardless of population. And of the two, guess which one ultimately has the most power?
Yep, the Senate. That is done on purpose. The "mob rule" mentality may sweep the House, with people screaming for all kinds of things. But it is the role of the Senate to be the final arbiter of almost everything put in front of it. And it tends to be a much more moderate body.
And this is why if you look at the oldest 2 nations with these forms of government, which lasted longer? The era of Democratic Greece (just over 250 years), or the Roman Republic (482 years)? Our Founders were not stupid men, and they looked at each of these systems before deciding on first a Confederacy (which failed), then finally a Republic.
In fact, many of the very reasons our Confederacy failed is that it was "to much" democracy. It was realized that the nation needed a firm control of the various states, yet still be subservient to them.
Hell, we already have people that want to do just that. And more, just because they are acting like children because they did not get their way.
Any time I hear people saying we need a huge change in how we handle the running of the country and that it should be done outside of the Constitution, I get very nervous. And I do not give a damn which way or who proposes it, I am a strong believer in that Document which I swore to protect and defend many times.
If you think the Electoral College should be disbanded, that the Senate should be disbanded, that all Electors should vote the way of the popular vote, then make it an amendment and then modify the Constitution!
Period. I believe that anything other than that is an attempt to strip away our Constitutional Protections, and disenfranchise people simply because they do not think like you do.
But those that scream for this know such an action would never pass so refuse to ever do that. They know for example that there is no way states like Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, or others would ever agree to throw away their equal say as a state, simply because all of those states combined do not even come close to the population of Texas or California. They know it would give huge power to 11 states, and relegate the other 39 to insignificance.
~ This reminds me of the Ben Franklin quote :
" Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" a woman asks.
" A republic - if you can keep it.” replied the Doctor.
All joking aside, this is something I take very seriously. I have read both the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. And anybody who claims to understand what the Founding Fathers intended is speaking out their anal orifice I believe if they have not done so.
And I also believe that while the Constitution is a "living document" and should change (to a degree) as time progresses, that does not mean it should be changed at a random whim, to follow what the "current majority" accepts.
Consider this. If we were a "Democracy", you could literally have 51% of the people vote to outlaw any other political parties. You could literally have 51% of the people vote and exile or strip away the rights of a minority group. You could literally have 51% of the people decide to throw away the Constitution and the US convert into any other form of government. Even a Christian Theocracy, Marxist State, or Oligarchy run by the rich and powerful.
I am one that also has a distrust of "Democracy". Imagine if we were, and if in 1942 we had a vote if we should strip citizenship of all those of Japanese descent, and exile them from the US. Does anybody really think this would not pass? If in 1865 we had a vote, and it was decided that those living in the States in Rebellion were forever stripped of all Constitutional Rights, and delegated to second class citizen status. Does anybody think that would not have passed?
We are a Republic for a reason. It is exactly to moderate the power of "mob rule", and allow the framework to guarantee right to everybody. And every year I get more and more protective of this, and am actually starting to see those who scream otherwise as possible enemies of our Republic. Simply because they refuse to work within the framework of the country and subvert it.
If they were honest, they would propose those changes as Amendments.
You mean Scientologists.....
Can you show me some evidence to support your suggestion that the DNC has gone 'radically left.'
All of those things especially a change to the Constitution is entirely wrong. The Constitution itself would stand in the way. Of course, anarchy can do what it likes. But, that is not what you have. You have the Constitution which establishes rights.
Look it up guy.
Not me making the allegation. I am questioning the allegation......guy.
False. There have been a great many who publish the opposite.
Hell, just saying that 100% agree with anything is a lie.
So no, it is not "100%'. But please., continue to spread such lies. It only makes those like me take that side much less seriously.
Or, as a famous scientist once stated long ago:
What you are stating is indeed "false science". At one time, most "scientists" believed the Earth revolved around the Sun. This was taught for thousands of years. But just because that is what science accepted and told itself, that did not make it real.
And even as people accepted the Earth (then the Sun) was not the center of the Universe, for hundreds of years more they accepted the Milky Way Galaxy was the center of the Universe. Today we also know that is false, but that was accepted until fairly recently as being a fact.
But you can keep saying this forever, it does not matter. Because it is wrong, and only those who are brainwashed and retarded are stupid enough to believe any claim that "100% of anybody" agrees with any claim made.
That is not how science works, it is not a popularity contest.
But don't you know? It is all the fault of the US and other countries. What other countries do means nothing.
Which means nothing if people work to get around it without working within it's framework.
How many things have been ignored, even with a Constitution?
For example, look no further than California. Over 40 years ago, they passed a State Constitutional Amendment to forbid the State from enacting a new tax without voter approval. And since then, they simply enacted "fees", which are not "taxes". The state vehicle Registration "tax" is still around $35, but you pay hundreds of dollars in fees because that is not covered. Then we have had several "State Constitutional Amendments" thrown out as violating the "State Constitution", even though a State Proposition is in itself an Amendment to the State Constitution.
Might as well claim the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution is a violation since the original document did not include women.
And no, it is actually remarkably easy to throw out the entire Constitution. This is why whenever somebody suggests we hold a "New Constitutional Convention", I immediately stand up and scream "No!". It frightens me that most people are sheep, and do not even realize the power they are giving up if they vote for something like that.
The only entity that can 'work to get around it, ultimately, is SCOTUS
Well, if any of that was truly unconstitutional, I assume it would have been challenged in State Courts and up to SCOTUS if anyone chose.
The Constitution cannot be changed by a 'Convention' without prior involvement of Congress.
Nope. The SCOTUS only decides if a law is in violation of the US Constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do with deciding if a law is in violation of the State Constitution. In the same way, a State Supreme Court decides if a law violates the State Constitution, not the US Constitution.
All I can say is that you really do not get how these two organizations work, do you?
In fact, we have even had cases where a single judge struck down a State Amendment, and then the Governor would refuse to allow the Attorney General to fight against that decision. But this type of thing is common here in California. Where the legislature and Governor regularly ignore the will of the people.
And your point is? I never said it had no approval from Congress. I never want to see one because it literally is giving a group unlimited powers to change the government and structure of the country into anything they want. The moment it is called, quite literally the entire Constitution is thrown away.
You are right. I do not know the ins and outs of it all. On your last paragraph, if things were as easy as you imply, there is very little hard evidence to support your contention.
These radical Democrats would MUCH rather use their own dependable 'stable' of federal judges (hyperliberal, ACLU-friendly, Constitution-hating stooges). Obama put two more such creatures on the Supreme Court -- Sotomayor and Kagan. And if a Democrat is elected in November (and poor, old Ginsburg isn't already dead by then), we'll get even more of them on the highest court in the land.
We don't have three equal Branches of Goverment anymore... no. We have a Congress; we have an Chief Executive, and we have a Judiciary Branch, which has somehow become completely empowered to paralyze or invalidate anything that either of the other two Branches does!
So, while determining the quickest, easiest, most effective way to subvert the Constitution, Democrats fixated on the idea of taking over the Judiciary -- from top to bottom. And, from their America-hating perspective, they've done an EXCELLENT job of it!
The lesson? If you want absolute, authoritarian power, make certain that you OWN THE JUDGES!
Separate names with a comma.