The GOP and Minority Rule

#226
#226
luthervol said:
a moment ago you said states control their own elections - now you recognize that indeed they do not. it all depends on the context. (these are your own words in case you do not recognize them.

Plus, congressional elections are held at the same time is most every major election.
Click to expand...

They do control their own elections with the exception that you posted. Are you saying states have no control of their elections?
 
#227
#227
volinbham said:
They do control their own elections with the exception that you posted. Are you saying states have no control of their elections?
Click to expand...
I never said they had no control. You made the blanket statement that state's control their own elections. I merely pointed out that your blanket statement was incorrect.

You're welcome.
 
#228
#228
luthervol said:
I never said they had no control. You made the blanket statement that state's control their own elections. I merely pointed out that your blanket statement was incorrect.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

fair enough - that means you accept my critique of your states aren't equal commentary
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#231
#231
ClearwaterVol said:
What would have happened if a court disenfranchised millions of voters who followed the rules that they were told to follow?
Click to expand...

Then one would suppose those people should figure they were misrepresented and take out their grievances on the people who screwed up. It's in the Constitution ... things like right to assemble and address grievances ... Your argument also works the other way. If a system was corrupted by mismanagement to the disadvantage of people who voted the time honored correct way, then millions of other people were disenfranchised.
 
#232
#232
AM64 said:
Then one would suppose those people should figure they were misrepresented and take out their grievances on the people who screwed up. It's in the Constitution ... things like right to assemble and address grievances ... Your argument also works the other way. If a system was corrupted by mismanagement to the disadvantage of people who voted the time honored correct way, then millions of other people were disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

No, their votes were counted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#233
#233
AM64 said:
Then one would suppose those people should figure they were misrepresented and take out their grievances on the people who screwed up. It's in the Constitution ... things like right to assemble and address grievances ... Your argument also works the other way. If a system was corrupted by mismanagement to the disadvantage of people who voted the time honored correct way, then millions of other people were disenfranchised.
Click to expand...
Time honored correct way? You mean legally?
 
#234
#234
evillawyer said:
It's a silly false dichotomy. America is a republic in the sense that we have elected leaders who make governmental decisions. But it is a democracy because the people elect those leaders. When people make the stupid "America is not a democracy" argument they're attacking a strawman direct democracy argument (where individual decisions are put up to a vote) that literally no one is making. And you goobers on the right gleefully conclude that since America is not a (direct) democracy, any anti-democratic action is fine because we were never a democracy in the first place. It's really some first grade s**t.
Click to expand...

Our form of government was a compromise to entice a disparate collection of states (or colonies) to join together and form a union. The concept was the states would retain a significant degree of power and the federal government would be a vehicle to accomplish specific tasks that were better left to the larger whole - defense, for example, was better done at a "corporate" level than a bunch of independent and non-coordinated militias. The big problem is that the federal government usurped state powers, and we find ourselves bickering at each other because the federal government is trying to pound 300+ million people into standardized holes. One obvious solution is divorce - secession - admitting the original compromise while sound was corrupted, and we are no longer a body of states willing to work together under the current platform. The other is to somehow claw back the powers grabbed by the federal government, and that doesn't seem either possible or likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lerxtwood, Kristy*, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#236
#236
ClearwaterVol said:
No, their votes were counted.
Click to expand...

And potentially counter balanced by illegal votes. Legal votes minus opposing illegal votes means there are fewer legitimate votes. Illegal votes absolutely work to the disfavor of legal votes.
 
#237
#237
evillawyer said:
It's a silly false dichotomy. America is a republic in the sense that we have elected leaders who make governmental decisions. But it is a democracy because the people elect those leaders. When people make the stupid "America is not a democracy" argument they're attacking a strawman direct democracy argument (where individual decisions are put up to a vote) that literally no one is making. And you goobers on the right gleefully conclude that since America is not a (direct) democracy, any anti-democratic action is fine because we were never a democracy in the first place. It's really some first grade s**t.
Click to expand...

I contend the first grad s**t is trying to change the operation of our systems to gain power (court packing, statehood, dissolve Electoral College, etc.)

I contend the first grad s**t is saying anyone explaining why Senators or even House members are linked to differing number of people (eg. small states get more representation per resident) is NOT making a strawman "direct democracy" argument regardless of how many times you claim that's the argument. Talk about a strawman.

I contend the first grad s**t is arguing that it's not fair that small states get the same # of senators as large states then advocating for the creation of two more small states and their corresponding senators be added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, Kristy*, AM64 and 1 other person
#239
#239
volinbham said:
a moment ago you said they were not equals - now you recognize that indeed they are. it all depends on the context.
Click to expand...

Context and who counts or defines context is an all encompassing issue in liberal politics, and it's not a static concept.
 
#240
#240
evillawyer said:
Still waiting to hear how we get from (1) each state gets two senators, to (2) WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY YOU DAMN LIBTARD!!!!!

Can you help a brother out here?
Click to expand...
You get 2 senators no matter how many people are in your state. You get house representatives based on the population of your state. The House is a more "democratic" operation. The Senate is a representation of states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#241
#241
AM64 said:
And potentially counter balanced by illegal votes. Legal votes minus opposing illegal votes means there are fewer legitimate votes. Illegal votes absolutely work to the disfavor of legal votes.
Click to expand...

There were no illegal votes. You want to disenfranchise people that followed the rules that were presented to them. And the question of whether the rules were properly changed in Pa is not some slam dunk for the Trump side. We are not talking about fraudulent votes, we are talking about legit voters who followed the rues. You want to disenfranchise millions of voters because they didn't vote for your guy.
 
#243
#243
volinbham said:
I contend the first grad s**t is trying to change the operation of our systems to gain power (court packing, statehood, dissolve Electoral College, etc.)

I contend the first grad s**t is saying anyone explaining why Senators or even House members are linked to differing number of people (eg. small states get more representation per resident) is NOT making a strawman "direct democracy" argument regardless of how many times you claim that's the argument. Talk about a strawman.

I contend the first grad s**t is arguing that it's not fair that small states get the same # of senators as large states then advocating for the creation of two more small states and their corresponding senators be added.
Click to expand...
The writers of the constitution were obsessed with protecting their own interests and power. That was the whole root of both the great compromise and the 3/5 compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#245
#245
luthervol said:
Not really true:

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center
Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.
Click to expand...

Why is it that liberals don't go by words - that it all depends on "interpretations"? If you bend the meaning of enough words and newer interpretations then you can bend the meaning of statements and complete documents.

You do not reinterpret historic documents by using current definitions, but you may rephrase the original document with more modern word variants if you don't change the original meaning. That's not how you guys roll though. You cheat on definitions to get the meaning you want.
 
#247
#247
evillawyer said:
The senate is one-half of one of our three branches of government. I assume you also conclude that elephants are big and thin because they have big and thin ears.
Click to expand...

No but an elephant can stomp a hole in your ass.
 
#248
#248
volinbham said:
I contend the first grad s**t is trying to change the operation of our systems to gain power (court packing, statehood, dissolve Electoral College, etc.)

I contend the first grad s**t is saying anyone explaining why Senators or even House members are linked to differing number of people (eg. small states get more representation per resident) is NOT making a strawman "direct democracy" argument regardless of how many times you claim that's the argument. Talk about a strawman.

I contend the first grad s**t is arguing that it's not fair that small states get the same # of senators as large states then advocating for the creation of two more small states and their corresponding senators be added.
Click to expand...
Ahem

grade*

Couldn’t resist 😬
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#249
#249
NorthDallas40 said:
Since DC is basically a city state in that context we should also welcome the states of New York City, Los Angeles, and Houston to the Republic. Welcome all!😂
Click to expand...

Now that brings up a whole new problem. Since the idea was that the federal government not be located in a state and if by some idiocy, DC were to become a state, then where do we move the capitol and all the rest of the buildings containing federal government?
 
#250
#250
volinbham said:
I contend the first grad s**t is trying to change the operation of our systems to gain power (court packing, statehood, dissolve Electoral College, etc.)

I contend the first grad s**t is saying anyone explaining why Senators or even House members are linked to differing number of people (eg. small states get more representation per resident) is NOT making a strawman "direct democracy" argument regardless of how many times you claim that's the argument. Talk about a strawman.

I contend the first grad s**t is arguing that it's not fair that small states get the same # of senators as large states then advocating for the creation of two more small states and their corresponding senators be added.
Click to expand...

Court packing is not a constitutional issue and certainly has nothing to do with this silly republic vs democracy debate.

Statehood is governed by the constitution. Non-issue in preventing new states from coming on board. We've done it a lot since the original 13. My argument was always that while I'd prefer structural reform, if you're not going to get it, you gotta use what's at your disposal to correct the anti-democratic efforts by the GOP to entrench minority rule. Adding dc and pr through constitutional means would be completely constitutional (tautology)

EC obviously won't be dissolved because the small states have too much at stake to change it. EC compact is the best way to go. Unclear if SCOTUS would strike it down.

Wanting to ensure that all states had a voice is not the same as wanting to ensure that small states ruled. The latter is what has happened and what will continue to happen if things proceed as their proceeding. Framers never intended minority rule, just constraints on majority rule.

Good piece on how the GOP had been using this argument for years.

Sen. Mike Lee’s tweets against "democracy," explained
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top