And there's more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-hosts-disregard-the-networks-own-reporting
Gotta change the story for the hours Trump might be watching?
Did the Libtards not expect a backlash???
- Thread starter THall
- Start date
And there's more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-hosts-disregard-the-networks-own-reporting
Gotta change the story for the hours Trump might be watching?
Right Divider
Body part
The Electoral College is not party based. It's time that you stop spouting nonsense.
I have been. That how I know that you are immensely confused and unable to use logical reasoning.
You are confused to think that our form of government is or should be DIRECTLY democratic as a single state. We are a confederation of states and NOT a single state.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Try again.
I've found that when your opponent is talking about you instead of the issue at hand, it is usually because they are out of their depth.
I haven't argued for direct democracy or for abolishing federalism, and the fact that you see to think that I have leads me to suspect you don't know what those things are. Having a president at all is not direct democracy, and it cannot be. It is representative democracy. Or, in the case of the electoral college, completely undemocratic insanity.
ClimateSanity
New member
Paul Genova did not write this poem. One of his readers did. The writer was giving an explanation for the existence of the trump voter. These sentiments match those of the average trump voter in my mind. That's very accurate to me.
The writer identifies "you" as the people who have largely held political and cultural power since LBJ. I already described who US is.
I fail to understand how the description of the forming of a political movement can be called playing the victim card.
Giving the reasons for why you vote as you do is hardly playing any card at all. Someone playing the victim card uses his idea of being a victim to achieve a political goal. For an example of that, look at any speech given by a progressive who is using some class of people as oppressed who need a remedy....usually money.
Everytime a progressive uses identity politics to get something done for a group of voters who are beholden to them, they play the victim card.
The writer identifies "you" as the people who have largely held political and cultural power since LBJ. I already described who US is.
I fail to understand how the description of the forming of a political movement can be called playing the victim card.
Giving the reasons for why you vote as you do is hardly playing any card at all. Someone playing the victim card uses his idea of being a victim to achieve a political goal. For an example of that, look at any speech given by a progressive who is using some class of people as oppressed who need a remedy....usually money.
Everytime a progressive uses identity politics to get something done for a group of voters who are beholden to them, they play the victim card.
Right Divider
Body part
You seemed to be complaining the president is not elected by popular vote. The Electoral College was put in place explicitly for the purpose of NOT electing the president by popular vote. It is an exceptionally good idea that keeps the election of the president distributed among the states and NOT simply by the population at large.
Once AGAIN, it's the United STATES and NOT the United STATE.
Yes. And that has nothing to do with direct democracy.
Well, you couldn't very well use the popular vote when you have the non-voting slave population to account for. That's the most obvious need for such a contrivance. The authors of the Federalist papers would have you believe that the intention was to allow for a final check on the passions of the masses, but this has simply never occurred in the entire history of the Republic. At best, it's broken. More likely, it's an insincere fig leaf for a vital component of the slave power.
I guess I don't see the virtue in that. Unless you happen to be in the minority that finds itself empowered. Since the year 2000, Republicans have won 3 of the 5 presidential election, but only had the more popular candidate one time. It's pretty obvious why they like that arrangement, but it's not at all obvious to me why people who aren't Republicans would agree to be ruled this way.
The President rules as the President of all Americans, not the president of the states. He enacts policies that impact all Americans directly, not just states.
The Framers of the Constitution we're very much the colonial and post-revolutionary elite. They trusted the elites, and they weren't sure if they trusted their fellow citizens. They weren't even really sure if this whole idea of people ruling themselves would work out. Looking back now, with a couple of centuries of more history as a guide, I have a lot more confidence in my fellow Americans than I do in the broad wisdom of cloistered elites. And the irony is that Trumpism is mostly styled as anti-elite, whereas it really represents a reentrenchement of the traditionally powerful in the face of the forces that would bring change.
Not a correction that addresses any concern I've raised.
EXCELLENT!
The American public has been operating under the illusion that it was their votes that decided who becomes President - not the bureaucratic machinations of the Electoral College!
Why don't YOU try and change that single-handedly? Go for it. Stop "Bellyaching" and just, do something. We have faith in you. Well, not really, however, I'll bet you felt good about yourself for at least a split-second, right?
Does anybody really care about your opinion? I had to "hold my nose" while reading this post. Know what I mean partner? Probably not.
Does that mean his life is over now that you're "done with him?" Whoa, you must think you're pretty important?
"US" by Paul Genova
(Mr. Paul Genova has been President and Chief Operating Officer of Wireless Telecom Group Inc. since June 30, 2016.
Poor little privileged snowflake...
(Mr. Paul Genova has been President and Chief Operating Officer of Wireless Telecom Group Inc. since June 30, 2016.
Poor little privileged snowflake...
Right Divider
Body part
Popular vote is direct democracy.
That is one of the most ridiculous comments that I've ever seen on TOL.
I don't care which of the parties it is.
And yet the country is a confederation of states and NOT a single state.
Well too bad for you.
Again, too bad for you.
Last edited:
No it is not. Direct democracy is when the electorate vote directly on policy matter. An example of direct democracy in the United States is a ballot initiative, which some states allow. A president represents the people who elected her or him, thus it is an institution of representative democracy. What we do now is representative democracy through a level of indirection, which leads to results that are plainly undemocratic. It doesn't even really represent the states.
I'm not going to respond to the things you posted like this that don't really address anything:
The United States has its own legislature, courts, taxation authority, treasury, president, and system of laws that are unilaterally enforceable against states. And current jurisprudence is that the states cannot freely leave the Union. The confederation of states ended with the ratification of the current Constitution in the 1780s. The line between a confederation of states and a federal republic isn't real clearly defined, but the United States is pretty clearly on the federal republic side of it.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Nicely conflated. Using popular vote to elect the president would be direct democracy in regard to ELECTING THE PRESIDENT.
There was a reason for that and it still exists. That you will probably never understand that is your problem.
:rotfl:
We also directly elect our representatives in Congress. Does that mean it is direct democracy.
I've compiled for you a reading list, if you would like to catch up. I recommend going in order:
1. An English language dictionary. Look up the word "direct". Report back.
2. Literally any article explaining that "direct democracy" actually is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
3. Federalist Papers #68, which discusses Alexander Hamilton's ideas about how the mechanism would work. He anticipated that the electors would be highly qualified and able to exercise independent judgement. In fact, it doesn't work that way at all. In practice, they all vote for the candidate that they're pledged to support in such numbers that any faithless electors are utterly irrelevant, and in some states, they are outright illegal. You don't even vote for them by name. If, instead of electors, you simply tallied how many electors are pledged to each candidate, you'd change not a single outcome of any election in the history of the United States, and you'd barely change the tallies in the EC.
So, at best, the institution is inoperative as envisioned.
Great Post !!!
Right Divider
Body part
- That is at the STATE level.
- That is a RECENT change for Senators.
Boo hoo.
We're talking about Congress here. And I feel like you've missed the very basic point.
So?