When Ted Cruz is appointed to the SC
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
The better question is...when Trump appoints another Roberts/Kennedy-type SC justice, will those on the far-right who helped fuel Trump's 46% "win" cheer or jeer?
Almost two years lurking and this is your first post?
Congrats on pulling more losers out of the woodwork @MegaPoke
Kinda like that win Oklahoma State had over Oklahoma this past weekend. Just don't worry about the actual final score.
Friendly
Also...
Fresh meat
The actual final score is 306 -232. Even with all the shenanigans being pulled by Democrats. You know, the very things they said would be a direct threat to democracy if Trump had pulled them. Yeah, those things. Thanks for playing.
Except that they're not alike in any way at all.
In the electoral college, the same electoral college that Trump called a "disaster for a democracy" back in 2012. Guess that doesn't apply anymore. An electoral college which was created to appease the slave holding states and the "elites" of 1787.
Meanwhile, the American people actually chose someone else...
http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
Not realistic concern for whoever you think the far right is. A bigger concern is what will his labor secretary's position be on illegal immigration.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ho-prefers-foreign-labor-to-american-workers/
Umm, no. The electoral college that's part of the foundation of our representative democracy. We don't have, have never had, and we're never intended to have a direct democracy. Who cares what Trump said about it. Nice try though
It actually is a disaster for democracy.
Good thing we live in a Constitutional republic.
Funny you mention this. We actually won that game because we had fewer turnovers. I've got a petition.
Hey, just spitballing here, but I think Trump may actually have changed his position on that somewhere around the time he decided to run for office instead of focus on being a business owner in New York City.
Also, it's kind of obvious his strategy was to win electoral votes - and so was Hillary's. Because, that's how you win and both of them knew that going in. You really think he couldn't have spend time in New York and California and picked up enough votes to edge her out if that's how the game was played?
You are correct, we don't have a direct democracy. It would be absolutely insane to have all Americans vote on every policy initiative every election day. Can you imagine how long that ballot would be? The Athenians tried it though, but they of course only allowed certain men to vote.
We do have a representative democracy, but we elect those representatives by popular vote. That is except the President, where we rely on a crazy system that punishes certain states and rewards others. A system again that was created to appease slave holders and the elite of 1787.
It is way past time to directly elect our President like we do for every other representative in our government (us little people use to not be allowed to elect our U.S. Senators either, but thank goodness we changed that back in 1913).
You do you understand these are the united "states" of America right?
We live in a constitutional representative democracy that is also a republic. We are both a constitutional democracy and a constitutional republic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...public-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.b2e7ab8a8c1b
What, Trump change his position? Never!
Nope. He would have had to spent more time in areas that were more friendly to him.
It wasn't to appease slave holders. A republic was considered to be a superior form of government. You think the little people have it bad in a republic? Wait till you get a load of true democracy with direct election of the President. A government where the majority can trample over the minority. And the 17th amendment was highly destructive and directly contributed to special interest and their stranglehold on congress. Easier to lobby.
Sure. I like that you used "the" United States of America especially. Before the Civil War, it was common to refer to our country as "These" United States of America.
Sure it was. It was also because many of our founding fathers didn't trust the "rabble."
btw, no one is arguing against a republic on this thread. Getting rid of the electoral college would not all of a sudden make us a monarchy.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Last edited:
Good point. I haven't personally used the phrase "these United States" since the civil war myself now that i think of it.
No one said it would make us a monarchy, stop being ridiculous. It would move us closer to a true democracy which wouldn't end well. However, it does make the nation more susceptible to a populist being elected and becoming a dictator, czar, emperor, whatever. Take your pick.
And you want to talk appeasement. Let's talk the 3/5 compromise. It was non-slave holding states that didn't want to count them as whole people. So keep demonizing southern founders.
And that article is garbage. The bias is evident in the adjectives used for Wilson and Madison. Wilson is a "visionary" and presents the proposed the system the author would prefer. Don't mind that true democracy had already been done and failed. What a visionary. Meanwhile Madison is "savvy" like a fox, not trustworthy and very sneaky. Yet this republic wasn't visionary. Just a way to screw blacks. Please.
And what a shock. It was written by a butt hurt liberal who wanted to discredit the electoral college and deem it racist. "Oh noes, if it doesn't work for me it's racist." And sure enough, here come the screams of racism to discredit an entire system while kicking and screaming that it needs to be fixed so it can work for liberals again. That article is never written if the results are reversed.
Even Madison's statement regarding less extensive voting rights in the south was a direct comment to smaller populations and the lack of representation for those areas i.e., high population areas will control the election of the executive.
Direct election would mean approximately 10 cities or 147 counties would decide every election. There's no representation in that model for a huge segment of the population. The dissolution of our union would surely result. Likely in less than a generation.
What's the old saying? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner; lamb or grass. A republic is a well armed lamb telling them to rethink that vote.
And you want to talk appeasement. Let's talk the 3/5 compromise. It was non-slave holding states that didn't want to count them as whole people. So keep demonizing southern founders.
And that article is garbage. The bias is evident in the adjectives used for Wilson and Madison. Wilson is a "visionary" and presents the proposed the system the author would prefer. Don't mind that true democracy had already been done and failed. What a visionary. Meanwhile Madison is "savvy" like a fox, not trustworthy and very sneaky. Yet this republic wasn't visionary. Just a way to screw blacks. Please.
And what a shock. It was written by a butt hurt liberal who wanted to discredit the electoral college and deem it racist. "Oh noes, if it doesn't work for me it's racist." And sure enough, here come the screams of racism to discredit an entire system while kicking and screaming that it needs to be fixed so it can work for liberals again. That article is never written if the results are reversed.
Even Madison's statement regarding less extensive voting rights in the south was a direct comment to smaller populations and the lack of representation for those areas i.e., high population areas will control the election of the executive.
Direct election would mean approximately 10 cities or 147 counties would decide every election. There's no representation in that model for a huge segment of the population. The dissolution of our union would surely result. Likely in less than a generation.
What's the old saying? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what's for dinner; lamb or grass. A republic is a well armed lamb telling them to rethink that vote.
Right, but he's correct. "These" was the lingo and used to communicate a group of sovereign states in a union. While "the" implies one.
Its about time someone debated Constitutional intent, history and philosophy with @ThorOdinson13.
I've been looking forward to this for years. No pressure Thor.
I've been looking forward to this for years. No pressure Thor.
Glad to see you back at full strength.
Were you less active in the months preceding the election?
Correct, and "are" used to be used instead of "is." So now Mega can't MAGA because he used "the."
Were you visiting and reading? Just not contributing?
The two months in the run-up to the election we're surreal. Your thoughts were some I would have really liked to have heard.
It's been the best of times for some, and the worst of times for others.
Good to see you back online.
