I don't recall conservatives talking about raising taxes on the poor. Cutting benefits, yes. But the cutting benefits ties back to what your original post was, about personal responsibility and raising yourself up.
Trump Has A Mandate
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
- Status
They never talk about it explicitly, although Mitt Romney came close with his 47% comments. You have to dig into the details of their tax plans. In the case of Trump, he's collapsing tax brackets, which leads to higher taxes for people making very low wages. A lot of Republicans favor some sort of flat tax, which is a tax hike on the poor simply because the first dollars you earn aren't currently taxed, and those who favor a consumption tax don't mention that the rich consume a far lower percentage of their income than the poor, which shifts the burden from the rich to the poor.
Cutting benefits is certainly part of it. But not all of it.
Democracies have gotten so bad in history that people have begged to have their monarchs restored. Japan's a perfect example. Democracies come standard with a death clock, because society cannot handle unchecked rule and neo-liberals give us a perfect example.
They are simply adversarial to a properly running country- I fail to see what they say or do that shows that they care about, well, anything other than what flat out hurts America.
I just don't, there's a list a mile long of things which are clearly and definitively destructive to a country that they perpetuate, and a blank sheet to any good.
They are simply adversarial to a properly running country- I fail to see what they say or do that shows that they care about, well, anything other than what flat out hurts America.
I just don't, there's a list a mile long of things which are clearly and definitively destructive to a country that they perpetuate, and a blank sheet to any good.
Again you equate the demographic of the urban to be of more value than the demographic of the rural which should just have to live with what the majority rule is...sorry, doesn't work like that and again that is exactly why the pure democracy was rejected at the nations founding. The only ones that see it as a problem is you marxist regressive liberals which congregate in the same area and expect to rule over all the states nationally.
So, just like the global warming fantasy we should all go into a hysteria about things we don't know will ever happen but, think they will, and alter the constitution on an emotional whim? One is as dumb of an assertion as the other...
Yea, most of the defections were Hillary electors :chuckle:...well it has been over two hundred years with this system and that has NEVER happened yet so, lets trash the system for something that fits the regressive liberal sensibilities? Nah...
That is not my problem, it is yours given the system America has had in place for over 200 years is the standard. What you desire is going to require a super majority to change, and you simply don't have it not at the state or federal level.
I think you mean the framers, the founders found the country, the framers framed the constitution, which was debated vigorously before being ratified. The form of government along with the voting system was also adopted by a super majority every time it was voted on which was 4 different revisions all of which deposed the idea of pure democracy/majority rule. I don't believe the framers were superhuman but, I do know that these men were educated men, great thinkers, readers, and students of history & philosophy and were keenly astute to the reasons why governments rise, fall, and were perverted over time just like how liberals are trying to pervert this government now. The constitution has only been changed when there has been a super majority that found it necessary so, get your super majority and there you have it, until then...
I would say this amendment was a perversion that has destroyed the integrity of the constitution and with that I would say why have a senate at all? The point of the senate was to have representation of the states in congress, that is why they were appointed by the legislature of the state, we already have directly elected representatives from the people in the house of representatives, so I am not sure what the purpose of the senate is any more. :idunno:
You mean fair to the urban liberals in California, or New York, Chicago, Miami and to hell with the rest of middle America right? I have a better idea :idea:, if and when you crazy libs do get that super majority you go ahead and change the constitution but, first you have to muster a majority in the states, which you are severely lacking currently...nobody wants socialism but, you regressive liberals, change is coming though, and I am sure you will not like it. Oh well...
The cities are part of their respective states, no? Nothing is suspect, or sacrosanct, I am just saying the majority dwelling in a minority of regions does not rule over a minutely smaller (2% in this case) group that dwells in a a majority of regions, under our system. If you want it changed than get your super majority together and change it.
And though you philosophically do not agree with the style of equal representation that the framers designed does not empirically make your assertion better or correct.
O.K.....
Yours is a philosophical argument, and if it didn't work out for my party than I would wait until the next election cycle to try again, not whine about changing the system.
That fear then is the same now, especially with the substantial divisions we see today.
Obviously you haven't looked at an election map by district because where she did well was mostly by small urban regions with high populations such as San Diego,LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Miami, etc. the rest of many of these states still remain red.
I have never implied it as the Holy Writ, I would however say that the constitution is a blueprint and given that I work with blueprints all the time I can say that even in this situation changes are not made to a blueprint without deep discussion as to the effects and value, furthermore it takes the buy in of a lot of people to make that change just like the amendment process to the constitution. It really doesn't matter what one man (you) say are grave errors, it takes a lot of people to come to the same conclusion to make the change, and that is a good thing.
And I would say either dissolve the Senate because they have no purpose given they are supposed to represent the states interests, that is why originally they were appointed by the state legislature and representatives were directly elected to represent the people in those states by district or go back to the original design. I would argue that we have already perverted the system for the whims of majority rule with the 17th.
That is the system, and we just disagree on every point of this issue. :e4e:
If Hillary voters won by any real majority, this discussion might have some more value.
But
As I stated, the popular vote is due to college prats who are so unfamiliar with the world that they march on basic human nature they didn't know existed in their nice schools and neighborhoods growing up.
I really think the age of voting needs to be risen- in the Founding Father's time, a person was considered a man at 16 years old. Children weren't pampered back then. Today, even the most mature 16 year old is still a child. So what is 18, really :idunno:
They can't be trusted to drink a beer but they can vote for the highest office in the country.. makes perfect sense :freak:
It's self-evident that we don't need that influence at the ballot.
But
As I stated, the popular vote is due to college prats who are so unfamiliar with the world that they march on basic human nature they didn't know existed in their nice schools and neighborhoods growing up.
I really think the age of voting needs to be risen- in the Founding Father's time, a person was considered a man at 16 years old. Children weren't pampered back then. Today, even the most mature 16 year old is still a child. So what is 18, really :idunno:
They can't be trusted to drink a beer but they can vote for the highest office in the country.. makes perfect sense :freak:
It's self-evident that we don't need that influence at the ballot.
19 days !!!!
Nearly three million people are substantive enough...unlike your complaint.
You also said they're all upper middle class or better too. That one was funnier.
This makes your sneering critique of educated people a lot funnier.
And the average lifespan was 35.
lain:
Sure.
Wait a minute...you use that 2% as if it diminished the point, but you're fine winning a state by that same percentage and accumulating the entire EC vote. There's a disconnect in that. And ultimately, you're restating my point, that the majority in concentration shouldn't have the same influence of people who are simply spread out across a large area.
The reasons the founders had for creating the EC have mostly gone by the boards, as I noted a long while back when citing to historical examinations on the point, but what I'm mostly arguing is that a popular election of the president, one the EC almost always rubber stamps, makes more sense in relation to the idea of equality that is bedrock within our compact. More, where we find an intentional drawing of voting lines to accomplish what the EC system did we call it gerrymandering and repeal the lines.
Exactly. It's not about party or whining or revisiting the election. I think the recount was a goofy waste of time and the issue in the present is settled. But what was the odd, rare occurrence has now visited twice in relative short order and I think it's bad for the compact, because it tells a small business owner in a given city that his vote isn't as important as a farmer's, by way of.
It's not at all the same thing. This isn't west and south and east laboring to promote a regional interest. These aren't people unfamiliar with the candidates from any particular. Hillary won in concentrations across the country, even carrying parts of the South.
I'm looking right now. Even in Alabama, the most pro Trump state in the country, you'll find a swath of blue.
That sounds good to me.
It does if I'm right. And any movement starts with people questioning the wisdom of something established within the compact.
Completely agree.
You never gave the "or" to meet that "either" and the time of dominance of the landed gentry, the treating of women and minorities like second class citizens is done. The majority you seem to disdain (except when it's a majority as triggered by the EC) is no more prone to whim than the minority.
A country with 325 million people.
You're idea of a majority is sorry.
And the average lifespan was 35.
Before modern healthcare, the mortality rate for infants and young children were high. If you lived passed that, however, you tended to live nearly as old as anyone now.
The Apostles lived well into their 70's and the only doctor then was a guy walking around with an alchemy bag.
No, it's simply rational. You should try that. It's a slim, sliver of a thing, but majority it remains. Not mandate, not landslide, just a numerical superiority expressed against the minority position.
I never suggested that people didn't live to ripe old ages. We have all sorts of examples, but disease was another killer among the population that struck the young, old and middle aged alike. And we live longer now, on average, even factoring in the differences. So the rise in lifespan is attributable to a number of factors. Now if you were wealthy enough to afford the best food and healthcare, and survived into adulthood you could well expect to live into your 60s or early 70s.
Which of the apostles are you talking about? Not Peter or Paul, to be sure. Judas? No. John the Beloved? Who else?
Cool story.
I have another:
Grass is green, and water is wet.
Tell me why it takes a 67% vote to make decisions in legislation.
They died prematurely from persecution.
The one's who weren't persecuted early were persecuted in their 60's. I went and checked. That's both Peter and Paul.
Boring kid shtick.
Then stop saying stupid things and I won't point out the thing you shouldn't have to be told.
It takes a simple majority to pass a bill.
I know. I was wondering why you decided to declare another "fact" without knowing.
And that's another reason why I don't assume the obvious is in your wheelhouse.
How many days until we can try to get Trump out of the White House? :think:
You're talking about large changes within the tax system. I think it'd be hard to form any drastic change that wouldn't have some losers. ThI believe in consumption taxes there are some ideas for helping the poor, like only taxing consumption above a certain point. For flat tax I'm not sure. Some of it would depend on what level the tax is at. Or again there could be a line above which income is taxed. If one of their plans would have widespread increases among the poor then no it wouldn't jive with any declarations about helping the poor.
1405.
Are you hoping that Hillary will run again or perhaps Chelsea?
I hope that time accelerates so Obama doesn't have enough time to create more damage. He's brought about enough destruction in the last eight years. He came out of nowhere and I hope he returns there and never has any influence again. Unfortunately, it appears he's remaining in Washington in order to set up some form of makeshift "Shadow Government" type of influence.
lain: Now I know why you thought I was naive. You're paranoid...I wonder how much power you guys need to have before you stop thinking like victims and what you're going to do when there's literally no one in the power structure that fits this easy villains role you've invested so much time creating. I suspect you'll turn on your own again, go RINO hunting and ascribe the failures of leadership to that same shadow.
And it takes 67% for other things, and 75% for a Constitutional change.
Electing a President is of greater importance than ~bills, bulls, and all things vetoed~
It's like the Brexit in Europe- they did that by simple majority- the liberals over there might have benefited by having a system like ours. They deemed it being due to 'right wing extremism'.
Well gee, what have I been saying about the neo-liberal problem here
The fact is, the EC checks socialism over here. Every time it takes a different course than the popular vote, that is always the outcome :chuckle:
And there's interesting implications there, particularly with the way society votes and why.
- Status