fauxcahauntas
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
No. A constitutional republic and a representative democracy.
It appears some of you need to retake Civics 101.
I'm sorry you oppose representative democracy and oppose the right of the people to directly elect their representatives/leaders.
Sounds like you would prefer an oligarcy, perhaps even a dictatorship. Not really surprising given your support of Trump.
You're obviously a victim of our failing public education system.
And no. I'm not even going to attempt an explanation. Getting through to you is completely beyond my reach.
Why no actually I'm a states rights guy. Before the 17th amendment was passed Senators were a direct representative of each state's legislature now Senators represent whichever special interest group gives them the most money.
United STATES of America - it's right there in the name. EC is the ultimate states rights issue. A serious attempt to remove it would be the end of the United part.
I'm sure you aren't, because there is none.
Maybe you should go back to trying to convince everyone of your racial status.
No doubt about that.
You also support an oligarcy based on your posts. Just admit it. It's ok, we already know.
Nope. Try again. The Electoral College is actually hurting our union, but I doubt you will ever bring yourself to see that.
It is just interesting how those on the right are so opposed to letting the American people elect their President. Just goes hand in hand with where they are moving politically under Trump.
TBH, that's about the dumbest answer I could have imagined you giving.
So southern states didn't want to include slaves who could not legally vote in their population count in order to increase their representation proportion in the federal government? Interesting. Can you travel back in time to 1787 and let the folks at the Constitutional Convention know that? It was quite the point of discussion. If the northern states knew that the southern states didn't want to include slaves in determining their population it probably would have saved days of discussion and negotiation.
PS... you might check the Federalist Papers for clarification on the thoughts of the Framers when it came to electing the President.
States having more of a voice in our federal government is an oligarchy to you? I would think even a eft wing hack like yourself would agree giving states more of a voice in the federal government would be the polar opposite of an oligarchy. Evidently your indoctrinators did a great job with you.
I personally kinda would like to see a Democratic candidate win the electoral college while the Republican wins the popular vote. I think we would finally then have a consensus on how flawed the Electoral College is and it would be done away with.
As long as Republicans only benefit though from this system, there is no incentive for them to want to amend the system. Thus they will continue to make the lame and flawed arguments we see on this thread in defense of it.
Doing away with the EC would be supporting a Oligarchy.
There is no flaw in the EC. Run better candidates that can win the electoral college. It's really not a difficult concept.
No it wouldn't. Giving power to all the people, one vote one person, is not an oligarchy.
I wonder, do you support the party presidential nominations being decided by the vote of the people in primaries? Or would you like to return to the days of political bosses having the power and the smoke-filled rooms?
Sure there are. Many flaws. And some of them have already been put forth on this thread.
I disagree. Believe it or not there are differences in what is important to different people. What is important to people in Big Cities is not the same as what is important to those that live in smaller cities or out in the country. If you look at a map of counties won by President Trump you will find that Trump won a huge majority of the country. Just because huge population centers voted for Clinton doesn't mean that is a representation of the will of the people.
What you want is for the people that live in the rust belt to have absolutely no say in how the country is run unless they happen to agree with big city liberals. IMO and the founders opinion that is wrong. Each state has a portion of the EC depending on the population of each. It doesn't get anymore fair than that. You know the rules instead of trying to change them learn to play by them.
IMO if you do somehow manage to change the EC, you will see states try to succeed and willing to fight to do so. That should be avoided at all cost. For now we live in a free country with rights that allow us to have our own opinions, whether liberals agree or not. Living in a country without representation is not freedom.
You achieving success in explaining the difference between 4 wheel drive and all wheel drive to 2cents is virtually impossible.
The common argument you are making is flawed and incorrect. I don't want the people in the rust belt to have absolutely no say in how the country is run. I want each person in the rust belt to have the same equal say as other Americans around the nation. One person, one vote.
Also, your presupposition that if the electoral college is done away with this will benefit the big cities is wrong also. Please, for the love of God, take a moment and watch this video (especially from 3:16 to 4:16 which directly addresses your claim). Stop repeating a claim that has been shown to be false!
This is absurd. You going to help start and fight in a civil war over the electoral college? You going to go kill other Americans over the electoral college?
See how stupid that sounds?
@2012Bearcat ...
Do you support the party presidential nominations being decided by the vote of the people in primaries? Or would you like to return to the days of political bosses having the power and the smoke-filled rooms?
Do you support the party presidential nominations being decided by the vote of the people in primaries? Or would you like to return to the days of political bosses having the power and the smoke-filled rooms?
No one is advocating for mob rule.
Try to keep up. Or maybe log out and log back in.
Can you point to a single sentence in the constitution addressing the topic of political parties and expand on why the framers wrote it in that way?
Sure, as soon as you answer the question I asked 2012Bearcat instead of deflecting to a separate question. That is if you want to get in on this discussion.
I’m sorry, I’m bored doing laundry for my trip tomorrow.
I’ll turn on the TV and let you continue making an ignorant “40 yr old” ass of yourself in peace.
Addressing your answer. I can't help that it was stupid.
There wouldn't be a single cluck from you "progressives" if Hillary had won. The real flaw for you is that the voters rejected 4 more years of shitty leftist leadership.
I think it's obvious that none of us support the way Hillary was given the Democratic Nomination, even the liberals.
I fully supported the way the Democrat Party cut off Freidrich Sanders at the knees. I was worried about too many U. S. Nationals falling for Hugo Chavez style "free stuff".
Last time I checked, Clinton won more of the popular vote at 55.2%. 3 million plus more votes. I was actually rather impressed with how well Sanders did with the Democratic establishment against him. No way he gains the traction or attention he did in 2016 if the old system was still in place.
Good to know though you break with your oligarchy tendencies on this point. If only you could do it in the other areas.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Screams Before Silence - a documentary about Hamas atrocities to females- Latest: Sunburnt Indian
-
