Author Topic: What made me angry today... (Read 1922 times)

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #45 on:** May 22, 2003, 05:00:33 PM »

i understand the argument your useing it was the same one they used to count slaves as 3/5th of a man. bull**** politics at is worst then and now. pretending giving one man more power in voting balances anything is just incorrect use of the word, it imbalances the votes in a way you think is nessasary, i don't.

people in wyoming are not more important than people in texas for any reason its just a falshood, and also there is a paper that used to be important with "all men are created equal" somewhere if the present administration is done whiping their collective tulips with it and havent thrown it out the window in the name of the reich.
we arent the lose confederation we were at that point in time. the states tried for freedom from federal tyrany once and failed. they havent won a single argument with the feds on anything that counts since 1865. hell my state would be better off out of the the federal republic than in it. continuing the unequality of value to each mans vote on the idea that it gives rural areas equal representation. when it really gives unequal over value to them resulting in situations where truly questionable people get elected agains the will of a substantial portion of the total population( as in there are 11 states with voting populations smaller than gores margin of victory in the popular vote even after the more far left canidate siphoned off 2.8 million liberal votes ). (please please please ask for cite) it needs changin if only to prevent people with the aformentioned character flaws from the highest office in our country, im resigned to idiots and liars in all the lower ones. religous zelots cokeheads and deserters need not apply. all in one forget it.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #46 on:** May 22, 2003, 05:25:08 PM »

Quote

pretending giving one man more power in voting balances anything is just incorrect use of the word, it imbalances the votes in a way you think is nessasary, i don't.

people in wyoming are not more important than people in texas for any reason its just a falshood, and also there is a paper that used to be important with "all men are created equal" somewhere if the present administration is done whiping their collective tulips with it and havent thrown it out the window in the name of the reich.

LDV

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al sure had some crazy ideas...

A senate that represents states?

A house that represents districts allocated to the states based on population?

An Electoral college that was enumerated along the congressional model?

How extremely stupid. It will never last.

By the way just who is advocating unconstitutional ideals?

Toad · « **Reply #47 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:16:53 PM »

Yeah, I have to laugh almost every time.

Blast the present administration for this and that act as being "unconstitutional" and then explosively regurgitate all this bile about the Electoral College, the Second, Democracy/Republic etc., etc., etc.

Ah, well.. it always provides a smile at some point during the day.

Republic. Say the word. All together now.

Here's one to research for you.

Quote

Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

Republic.

midnight Target · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:21:57 PM »

So why is an electoral college still important to our Republic? IIRC the EC was originally implemented as a hedge against an uninformed populace. The FF figured there should be a few members of the landed gentry to help keep the little people from messing up.

Toad · « **Reply #49 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:27:11 PM »

Why shouldn't everyone in the USA vote for the Governor of California and every other state?

Why don't we elect Senators nationally instead of state by state?

Why don't we elect Representatives nationally instead of state by state?

Basically, it all boils down to the same reason.

Suppose, just for an example, that 60% of the people in the US lived within the city limits of NYC, which had expanded to cover most of NY state. Should the residents of NYC get to elect the President all by themselves? If you had this mass of folks in "Greater NYC", who would the politicians pander to and provide porkfests for?

Everyday, I'm extremely happy the Founding Father's were so bloody smart. They were almost prescient; maybe there will be time travel, eh? Maybe from Greater LA, a distant also-ran to Greater NYC in the year 2450 all the way back to 1776.

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:28:18 PM »

...and when did the definition of "state" change from country to territory?

midnight Target · « **Reply #51 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:36:31 PM »

A decent argument Toad, but not the original intent of the FF. Seems to me that it just luckily turned out to be a good thing for the wrong reasons.

Look at the demographics in 1790 compared to today. Almost a complete flip flop from 90% agricultural to 90% urban. I'd guess that the FF would have been less inclined to implement an EC if they knew city dwellers would make up a majority of the voters.

Sandman · « **Reply #52 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:42:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
...luckily turned out to be a good thing for the wrong reasons.

Depends on what you mean by luck... it offends me that a vote for president in Wyoming carries more weight than a vote in California.

Toad · « **Reply #53 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:49:25 PM »

In any event, this is still and always will be a Republic. So the "democracy" argument/bile isn't even on the radar screen. Lot of folks don't seem to realize the difference or the fact of it.

So what was the original intent of the Founders with respect to the Electoral College?

I've been reading up on it, including some of the Founders as sources.

What conclusions do you draw on the subject?

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:52:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Depends on what you mean by luck... it offends me that a vote for president in Wyoming carries more weight than a vote in California.

It would offend me far more if the citizens of major cities votes could make everyone else in the nation "play their way". And without the Electoral College, that's exactly what would happen. Thank the Founders for the 3/4 Constitutional amendment ratification rule!

It works perfectly. The high density areas can make rules for themselves, but not for the low density areas. And vice versa. How novel! How wonderful! What a GREAT solution.

Sandman · « **Reply #55 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:58:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
It works perfectly. The high density areas can make rules for themselves, but not for the low density areas. And vice versa. How novel! How wonderful! What a GREAT solution.

What does this have to do with choosing a president?

The EC is used for nothing else.

Steve · « **Reply #56 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:59:11 PM »

Vader, your spelling is so poor that I cannot give enough credence to your arguments to reply in any length. I really can't take what is supposed to be an intellectual debate seriously when my opponent's posts are rife with misspellings; a clear indication that I'm dealing with one who is poorly educated and thus cannot hold an intelligent repartee. Ergo, any response I posted for you of any substance would be lost on your dull wit. So, for you, I keep my replies to your ignorant typing as succinct as possible.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #57 on:** May 22, 2003, 07:02:59 PM »

You know before the 2000 election it was sometimes speculated that GWB would win the popular vote but that Gore would come out on top in electoral college votes.

Something makes me think that if that had happened some of you would feel much differently about the ec today - but of course you wont admit it.

Nonetheless whatever your view of the 2000 outcome - GWB did win the election according to the laws of the united sates and he is president today.

Sandman · « **Reply #58 on:** May 22, 2003, 07:04:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Vader, your spelling is so poor that I cannot give enough credence to your arguments to reply in any length. I really can't take what is supposed to be an intellectual debate seriously when my opponent's posts are rife with misspellings; a clear indication that I'm dealing with one who is poorly educated and thus cannot hold an intelligent repartee. Ergo, any response I posted for you of any substance would be lost on your dull wit. So, for you, I keep my replies to your ignorant typing as succinct as possible.

I am not so certain. In my experience, spelling is not necessarily indicative of poor education or lack of intelligence.

10Bears · « **Reply #59 on:** May 22, 2003, 07:22:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Opinion, not fact. There is the '91 Ceasefire terms argument. So far it hasn't been adjudicated and probably never will be.

This spin ain't gonna fly Toad...