Some electors flipped after all

[Crucible]

A nonsensical myth? The SCOTUS Dread Scott decision declaring slaves as property was BASED on the views of the founders.

The court held that Scott was not free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices, black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.

source

Maybe we can just replace your cross with a swastika now?

They were counted as property for the sole reason of not being counted as a citizen and thus given the same rights as others. Just as the '3/5ths' deal, where they were represented collectively as 60% in any legal context.

Nobody saw them as 'non-human', that's just your racially paranoid fueled revision of the past, thinking they saw others as animals distinct from a white human or something.
They just wanted their slaves without legal conundrums, it's that simple.

And you all are one to talk about 'swastikas', talk much about the Black Panthers who want to kill all white people? I'm guessing no, being that even sniping out police isn't enough for you to rethink BLM.
As I've mentioned before, you're all just a bunch of manipulators using minorities and specialty groups to further your very ill agenda :wave2:

 

[MrDante]

It did not go to the loser, it went to the winner of the the most states which is the standard for over 200 years not to the popular vote that dwell within one state, most namely California. There is nothing questionable about the electoral system and decrying the rules after the game is finished is just sour grapes.

there is plenty questionable about it. And I have been part of movement to get rid of the electoral college for the last 16 years.

 

[rocketman]

there is plenty questionable about it. And I have been part of movement to get rid of the electoral college for the last 16 years.

Good luck with that, changing the constitution requires 2/3rds majority and given that you libs cannot even muster a majority in one house of the legislature it is quite doubtful you will achieve that amendment anytime soon. The constitution is only questionable to the same folks that question everything in the constitution from allowing any faction to rule supreme. If socialism and mob rule is your thing than move, America was never designed to work that way and your ignorance of the constitution and why our government was set up in the fashion that it was is a poor excuse to change it, our republic & it's constitution work just fine. :thumb:

 

[MrDante]

Good luck with that, changing the constitution requires 2/3rds majority and given that you libs cannot even muster a majority in one house of the legislature it is quite doubtful you will achieve that amendment anytime soon. The constitution is only questionable to the same folks that question everything in the constitution from allowing any faction to rule supreme. If socialism and mob rule is your thing than move, America was never designed to work that way and your ignorance of the constitution and why our government was set up in the fashion that it was is a poor excuse to change it, our republic & it's constitution work just fine. :thumb:

You didn't think that when the Supreme Court used the constitution to rule for Obergefell v. Hodges

 

[Crucible]

Good luck with that, changing the constitution requires 2/3rds majority

It requires a 3/4 majority, in which 2/3 of both houses agree

Constitutional changes are something liberals can only dream of doing, because their only learned response to anything is denouncing everyone else as 'bigots, racists, sexists' anon anon- they know how to shape public opinion only just enough to go running to the Supreme Court.

People got sick of it.
In retrospect, it's funny how nobody projected what should have been fairly obvious- this country wasn't about let Hillary in office

 

[fool]

Um, says the guy that voted for the inexperienced con artist. .........

I have to take exception with that, at 70 years old The Donald is incredibly experienced.

 

[rocketman]

You didn't think that when the Supreme Court used the constitution to rule for Obergefell v. Hodges

I may not have liked many Supreme court decisions but, you did not see me propose eliminating the supreme court either. There are lots of things that I disagree with but, the design of our constitution, or the republic under it is, without question, the best form of government on the planet. No constitutional change required...

 

[JudgeRightly]

I may not have liked many Supreme court decisions but, you did not see me propose eliminating the supreme court either. There are lots of things that I disagree with but, the design of our constitution, or the republic under it is, without question, the best form of government on the planet. No constitutional change required...

I don't know your religious affiliation, but wouldn't a government designed by God be better than something man could ever dream up?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[rocketman]

It requires a 3/4 majority, in which 2/3 of both houses agree

How about we just say Super Majority? :thumb:

Constitutional changes are something liberals can only dream of doing, because their only learned response to anything is denouncing everyone else as 'bigots, racists, sexists' anon anon- they know how to shape public opinion only just enough to go running to the Supreme Court.

And they are about to lose control of the courts for a generation as well. That seems to be the way with the regressive left...if they cannot win at the ballot box it is straight to the courts to legislate for them. That paradigm will probably not change but, having another activist justice, legislating from the bench on things the constitution is silent on will change. If the constitution is silent state law should prevail unless they can encourage federal laws to be passed.

People got sick of it.
In retrospect, it's funny how nobody projected what should have been fairly obvious- this country wasn't about let Hillary in office

I believe that we are still in the denial phase of the regressive left's grief process...:chuckle:

 

[rocketman]

I don't know your religious affiliation, but wouldn't a government designed by God be better than something man could ever dream up?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

You will never have a government designed by God absent Christ Himself ruling over it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You will never have a government designed by God absent Christ Himself ruling over it.

I agree, somewhat, but that wasn't my question.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[fool]

Just in case anyone else didn't know who Faith Spotted Eagle was, she's a Sioux Activist;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Spotted_Eagle

 

[Alate_One]

I have to take exception with that, at 70 years old The Donald is incredibly experienced.

In changing wives, swindling people, going bankrupt. Experienced at running a country, not so much.

 

[ok doser]

Experienced at running a country, not so much.

who is, before stepping into the office?

 

[Alate_One]

who is, before stepping into the office?

Plenty are at least experienced in running a state, or being in government, AT ALL.

Business is not government and government should not be run like a business because businesses are dictatorships.

 

[Alate_One]

And they are about to lose control of the courts for a generation as well. That seems to be the way with the regressive left...if they cannot win at the ballot box it is straight to the courts to legislate for them. That paradigm will probably not change but, having another activist justice, legislating from the bench on things the constitution is silent on will change. If the constitution is silent state law should prevail unless they can encourage federal laws to be passed.

You mean it'll keep happening? The only reason the SCOTUS will change is because Republicans did not do their job. Expect if a justice dies, Democrats in the senate will do the same.

I believe that we are still in the denial phase of the regressive left's grief process...:chuckle:

It's rather funny you call the left regressive. It's the right that's regressive. The left is progressive.

Secondly, the election was won by a few thousand votes in a handful of states. The overall trend is that the electorate is becoming more liberal, not less. Comey saved your bacon this time or perhaps sealed all of our fates. Republicans haven't won the popular vote in a national election since 2004. They've gerrymandered themselves into safety for the time being, forestalling the inevitable. But if Trump fails badly, you'll likely lose the country for at least a generation.

 

[fool]

In changing wives, swindling people, going bankrupt. Experienced at running a country, not so much.

And yet here we are with him having defeated The Republicans, The Democrats, and The Media.
He spent half as much as Hillary.
Complete Domination, for half the price.
Who's inexperienced?

 

[drbrumley]

That said, the electoral college should be done away with in future elections.

So you want to eliminate the electoral college which would essentially eliminate the role of states in presidential elections? Doesn't sound good to me. Last I checked we were a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy.

 

[ok doser]

In changing wives, swindling people, going bankrupt. Experienced at running a country, not so much.

 

[Alate_One]

And yet here we are with him having defeated The Republicans, The Democrats, and The Media.
He spent half as much as Hillary.
Complete Domination, for half the price.
Who's inexperienced?

Complete domination no. He won the electoral college by a few thousand votes in the right states many of which most people thought were safe for Hillary. Trump had one of the smaller margins of victory in the electoral college and he lost the popular vote so. . . I wouldn't call that domination.

He won the Republican primary in an extremely crowded field, splitting the anti-Trump vote many times over. But he has amassed a lot of devoted followers that hang on his every word/tweet. It will be interesting to see what his cabinet of Billionaires actually does, considering their total lack of experience as well and whether his followers will stay happy over 4 years.