Nikki Haley Firing Watch

#279
#279
luthervol said:
You can lead a horse to water...........
Click to expand...

Deflect with all the fearful pseudo-wit you like. You can make an argument, or not. If you'd like to be taken seriously, make an argument. If you can't make an argument, revert to your usual retreats.

What logical argument are you trying to make?
 
#280
#280
Orange_Crush said:
Deflect with all the fearful pseudo-wit you like. You can make an argument, or not. If you'd like to be taken seriously, make an argument. If you can't make an argument, revert to your usual retreats.

What logical argument are you trying to make?
Click to expand...
I'm not really making an argument. Just encouraging you guys to think. Why does the same rational not apply on either a larger or smaller scale?
Is it fair for the state of Georgia to be so heavily controlled by metro Atlanta?
 
#281
#281
luthervol said:
I'm not really making an argument. Just encouraging you guys to think. Why does the same rational not apply on either a larger or smaller scale?
Is it fair for the state of Georgia to be so heavily controlled by metro Atlanta?
Click to expand...
Because metro Atlanta still shares more with Rome GA than it does San Fran. the founding fathers weren't telling states how to run their business. they were telling the feds how to run theirs so that the bigger states couldn't bully the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NorthDallas40
#282
#282
LouderVol said:
Because metro Atlanta still shares more with Rome GA than it does San Fran. the founding fathers weren't telling states how to run their business. they were telling the feds how to run theirs so that the bigger states couldn't bully the others.
Click to expand...
Bingo! And with regards to founding fathers dictating to the Feds they were also telling them what they could NOT do/touch. AKA the Bill of Rights. The first ten ammendments are largely “thou shalt not”.
 
#283
#283
luthervol said:
I'm not really making an argument. Just encouraging you guys to think. Why does the same rational not apply on either a larger or smaller scale?
Is it fair for the state of Georgia to be so heavily controlled by metro Atlanta?
Click to expand...

OK, since you won't lead, I will.

The same rationale doesn't apply for several reasons, primarily that the founding fathers designed them not to operate on the same principle. They didn't set up a democracy, no matter how much you want them to have. They set up a constitutional, representative republic. Thus, at the federal level, we have representatives-- i.e. the electoral college, as opposed to a mob rule democracy. Yet, the FFs also wanted each person to have some sort of say in their representation. So, they set the constitution up so that each state had a per-person vote, which informed state representatives of the overall citizenry's desires for a president. And they set it up so that each state had complete control of how they assigned their electors to the college.

So, the democratic process happens at the state level so that each state puts up their electors to the federal college, each state's election informs the electors of how the state has voted, yet federal law empowers the electors from that point on.

The FFs designed the process to specifically NOT be at the federal level what you want it to be. They designed it to be almost anything each state wanted it to be, as long as the states put up the number of electoral college reps they get, and then remained powerless over those reps from that point on.

So, either make an argument or pipe down. All you're doing is ignorantly repeating the same crying you've heard since Hillary missed her turn.

TL/Dr; The design was basically to have the citizen vote democratically for their state representation and then that representation to represent them in a republic. Two different systems at two different levels, one feeding the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#284
#284
LouderVol said:
Because metro Atlanta still shares more with Rome GA than it does San Fran. the founding fathers weren't telling states how to run their business. they were telling the feds how to run theirs so that the bigger states couldn't bully the others.
Click to expand...
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
 
#285
#285
Exactly
LouderVol said:
Because metro Atlanta still shares more with Rome GA than it does San Fran. the founding fathers weren't telling states how to run their business. they were telling the feds how to run theirs so that the bigger states couldn't bully the others.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The design was for a democratic process to happen at the state level, where they vote in state representation that will pass laws on how/who they appoint electors to the federal electoral college. Each state has a democratic presidential voter to inform the electors. But the electors participate in a republic system to protect the federal system from mob rule.

It is really quite a beautiful compromise between democracy and a republic. (Even if Hillary did miss her turn.)
 
#286
#286
luthervol said:
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
Click to expand...

Of course the same logic doesn't apply. They are two different systems with two different purposes. The only reason you brought it up was because you didn't understand the system. The only reason you've all of a sudden goten vague about the points you're trying to make is because someone called your bluff.

Go read more and post less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#287
#287
luthervol said:
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
Click to expand...
Also, can you please give me the SC ruling you keep referring to? What were they trying to set an electoral college system up for? Presidential elections or congressional elections? Or both?
 
#288
#288
luthervol said:
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
Click to expand...
What’s the name of the country you live in?
 
#289
#289
Orange_Crush said:
OK, since you won't lead, I will.

The same rationale doesn't apply for several reasons, primarily that the founding fathers designed them not to operate on the same principle. They didn't set up a democracy, no matter how much you want them to have. They set up a constitutional, representative republic. Thus, at the federal level, we have representatives-- i.e. the electoral college, as opposed to a mob rule democracy. Yet, the FFs also wanted each person to have some sort of say in their representation. So, they set the constitution up so that each state had a per-person vote, which informed state representatives of the overall citizenry's desires for a president. And they set it up so that each state had complete control of how they assigned their electors to the college.

So, the democratic process happens at the state level so that each state puts up their electors to the federal college, each state's election informs the electors of how the state has voted, yet federal law empowers the electors from that point on.

The FFs designed the process to specifically NOT be at the federal level what you want it to be. They designed it to be almost anything each state wanted it to be, as long as the states put up the number of electoral college reps they get, and then remained powerless over those reps from that point on.

So, either make an argument or pipe down. All you're doing is ignorantly repeating the same crying you've heard since Hillary missed her turn.

TL/Dr; The design was basically to have the citizen vote democratically for their state representation and then that representation to represent them in a republic. Two different systems at two different levels, one feeding the other.
Click to expand...
The federal representatives (both house and senate) are selected on an all votes are equal basis. The only election where this is not the case is with presidential elections. If the electoral college is to ensure that populace states do not have excessive power over less populace states, why is the same not true for populace counties not having excessive power over less populace counties? Why would that be ruled unconstitutional?
 
#290
#290
luthervol said:
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
Click to expand...
the EC is rounding. you can't round at the state level like you can at the federal level, doesn't make as much sense to either. the problem with GAs plan as I understand it is they were taking a democratic election and applying the EC to it. so yeah that makes no sense. the presidential elections have always been purely EC, no democratic process about it. popular votes has always been the moral victory of the presidential. not so at the state level. I imagine to get the EC to work at the state level you would have to abandon the popular vote, and do the rounding at the county/state representative level.
 
#291
#291
luthervol said:
The federal representatives (both house and senate) are selected on an all votes are equal basis. The only election where this is not the case is with presidential elections. If the electoral college is to ensure that populace states do not have excessive power over less populace states, why is the same not true for populace counties not having excessive power over less populace counties? Why would that be ruled unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I just explained that. The democratic process is for each state to vote for their state's representative. The federal republic process is for the states to jointly choose a federal president. You seriously don't see the difference?

You've already said that you don't have a point in all of this. Make a logical argument as to why the FFs were wrong, and why we should all vote to change from a Republic to a democracy. Or we can all just ignore you and write you off to just another crybaby repeating the same mindless drivel we've heard from the left since Hillary "got cheated".
 
#292
#292
Orange_Crush said:
Of course the same logic doesn't apply. They are two different systems with two different purposes. The only reason you brought it up was because you didn't understand the system. The only reason you've all of a sudden goten vague about the points you're trying to make is because someone called your bluff.

Go read more and post less.
Click to expand...
I would like to think you're joking but unfortunately know otherwise.
My point has been consistent. You guys speak of the beauty of the system because it avoids "mob rule" but never apply the same logic to the state level.
Is the state system "mob rule"? If not, then nor would be the federal system.
If so, they why is it allowed to continue unquestioned.
 
#293
#293
luthervol said:
The federal representatives (both house and senate) are selected on an all votes are equal basis. The only election where this is not the case is with presidential elections. If the electoral college is to ensure that populace states do not have excessive power over less populace states, why is the same not true for populace counties not having excessive power over less populace counties? Why would that be ruled unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
because no state has set up there system to be like that. again as I understand it GA was trying to mix the two. also not sure how this would have made it to the US SC, I could easily see it getting to the GA SC.
 
#294
#294
luthervol said:
So if the states decide to have a system like the federal system, they will be allowed? Nope. Not allowed. Any system that weighted individual votes differently was considered unconstitutional. Just saying that it's interesting. Same logic doesn't apply, which seems illogical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they would be allowed if they set up their system like the EC where you vote for electors and not the actual candidate and there was an actual formula to decide the number of electors from each county or district. GA simply declared counties either cities, towns or rural and assigned a number.
 
#295
#295
Orange_Crush said:
I just explained that. The democratic process is for each state to vote for their state's representative. The federal republic process is for the states to jointly choose a federal president. You seriously don't see the difference?

You've already said that you don't have a point in all of this. Make a logical argument as to why the FFs were wrong, and why we should all vote to change from a Republic to a democracy. Or we can all just ignore you and write you off to just another crybaby repeating the same mindless drivel we've heard from the left since Hillary "got cheated".
Click to expand...
If you've only heard it since Hillary "got cheated" then you haven;t been listening. The debate has been going on much longer than that.
 
#296
#296
LouderVol said:
because no state has set up there system to be like that. again as I understand it GA was trying to mix the two. also not sure how this would have made it to the US SC, I could easily see it getting to the GA SC.
Click to expand...
Look it up. I have to go for a few hours.
 
#297
#297
luthervol said:
I would like to think you're joking but unfortunately know otherwise.
My point has been consistent. You guys speak of the beauty of the system because it avoids "mob rule" but never apply the same logic to the state level.
Is the state system "mob rule"? If not, then nor would be the federal system.
If so, they why is it allowed to continue unquestioned.
Click to expand...

Actually, I said that the democratic part of the system works at the state level, and the republic representation at the federal level. So, you are either saying that we should do away with the democratic representation at the state level, or the republic system at the federal level.

I've invited you to make your case, to give us your logical argument for why we should do whatever it is you're not brave enough to say we should do.

You wilted like an old dandelion, now, didn't you? Your just think, "it's interesting" is all. Right?
 
#298
#298
luthervol said:
I would like to think you're joking but unfortunately know otherwise.
My point has been consistent. You guys speak of the beauty of the system because it avoids "mob rule" but never apply the same logic to the state level.
Is the state system "mob rule"? If not, then nor would be the federal system.
If so, they why is it allowed to continue unquestioned.
Click to expand...
each state is its own entity. If Massachussets wanted to choose their governor based on the gopher seeing its shadow it could. states are allowed to be purely democratic, popular vote only. the president is not. the states still get their democracy at the federal level with representatives they send to Congress. but those representatives still only speak for their own states. the president doesn't speak for one state, he doesn't speak for the majority, he speaks for everyone, so if we went to pure popular vote it would be real easy to ignore whatever minority you wanted.
 
#299
#299
luthervol said:
If you've only heard it since Hillary "got cheated" then you haven;t been listening. The debate has been going on much longer than that.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't the Democratic Party made abolishing the EC part of their platform?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top