Most of our back and forth reduces to philosophical differences in approach and we've aired them so I'm going to avoid repeating a good bit where we've both been clear enough.
I can tell you that no I.D. is required to register nor is anybody asked to show any form of I.D. in California.
I'm betting they have voter lists and registration prior to voting.
As I said when you have no standard nor anything in place to enforce a federal standard You Will have illegals voting as well, that too is a given.
No, absent proof it's a supposition. To further suppose it to be influential would require even greater proof, reasonably.
That would be a Democrat problem as much as a Republican one...you are reaching now.
It has been more of a problem for Democrats in my lifetime, as the only occasions where the EC and popular vote have differed have allowed the candidate with fewer at large votes to win the election, but that's their problem. From a larger perspective I'd agree it's a problem for everyone. I'm simply not to the point where I'm certain it's worth the trouble. A few more of those, one way or the other, and I'd be inclined to lean toward the "Yes" column. I'm not there yet, but I can see it from here.
No, it is "We The People Of The United States" not "We The People Of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, & Tijuana".
That's literally just you putting a distribution of the lesser into the public virtue category for no objective reason, as I see it. People concentrated should have a lesser voice than a more widely distributed minority.
You can call it anything you please really, the fact that the republicans hold all the cards right now means they are taking it as a mandate, and they should, it is not like the democrats gave a second thought to pushing their agenda on all of America, now the shoe is on the other foot and regressive leftists are moaning? Too Bad...next time (if there is one) leftists should learn to move to the center & compromise.
I'm mostly arguing for a practically meaningful use of the word. Subjectively speaking, I suppose anyone can call a thing beautiful or consider a minority vote a mandate, if they're inclined.
they had no problem offering a turd sandwich to the right so, now they can enjoy the same treatment...Bon Appétit!
Allowing that was completely true, should the misconduct of others be the guide to our own? Is that the best model we can manage? I hope not. It's certainly not a flagship of moral or ethical leadership. So I'll hope for and argue for better.
Literally, yes it was false, or at least a misrepresentation of the Constitution concerning the roles of Staes & their citizens, and the role of the central government.
Not in any part, which is why you've yet to line it up. What particular? Which quote. Completely wrong headed of you. I haven't misrepresented a thing. Name it, in particular or you're letting that twice noted problem of lumping get the better of you.
Yet, as i read your post you attempt to delegitimize the states in lieu of a single populace under a central government...where have I read your statement wrong?
I don't know where you went wrong, but my best guess would be it's on par with the last couple and it goes to the particular political bias. I don't see this as a question of state vs federal. I see it as a simpler question of what should matter when it comes to electing a president.
You want a senator or representative then I think where you live within the country is self-evidently important. A president? No.
To quote the Deputy Director of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration:
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
[*=left]was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
[*=left]contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
[*=left]believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
[*=left]felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
Or, a great deal of what concerned the founders isn't applicable. What is reasonable in one age can be unreasonable (or at least unnecessary) in the next.
What does slavery have to do with it?
It's a context shaker, a way of suggesting that there were a few ideas this country and its founders had that were better amended, along with my prior note that a great deal of the EC had to do with the topography of the country and the problem of regionalism in an age when we all couldn't be familiar with a candidate from some great distance and when the regional distinctions were more meaningful.
BTW the size of government started it's biggest growth spurt under a democrat, FDR, you can't hang that albatross on just Republican necks
I don't know why not? Every Republican president in my lifetime has stridently grown government. Name the last one to shrink it. . . it's an issue without a champion outside of the rhetorical.
The same citation you posted when you said that the younger generation leans left wing
I've got source and citation on that. But I can't find one empirically demonstrating your speculation. And I think an examination of our nation's history is an illustration of a growing liberalism among its populace. Reagan noted it in his move from one party to the other. Many right wing conservative began to note the shift even within their own party (see: RINOs).
..I merely expounded that it has always been that way (from my observation anyway), I don't feel the need to cite it if you want to expound on it further you research it.
Then I'd say it's your belief and you're entitled to it, but it can't rise to a level of information without support.
Pretty much how I see it..
As someone who values a great deal of what defines conservative thinking and philosophy I hope that the political expression of it finds a way to inculcate that in the up and coming generations and peoples who will define America in the rest of this century. But I think that won't happen absent a real understanding of the jeopardy that is faced in a moment that on the surface seems immune to it.
