• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%

  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%
  • Total voters
    91
Federalist said:
Perhaps this is why, when the Nationalists were cooking up their power grab, patriots like Sam Adams nor Patrick Henry decided to stay home, with Patrick Henry famously stating, "I smell a rat."

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." -- Patrick Henry
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is. On the other hand, people like Henry remind me of the line from RAMBO where the Stallone character is described as a very valuable man in wartime - and fairly useless once the war is over.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is. On the other hand, people like Henry remind me of the line from RAMBO where the Stallone character is described as a very valuable man in wartime - and fairly useless once the war is over.
Click to expand...
I'm sure our different opinions of Patrick Henry are based on our different ethical outlooks. I, like him, regard it as unethical to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another.
 
haymarket said:
We are talking about this country. And what we have in this country is a representative democracy bound by a Constitution.

We DO NOT have direct democracy. Never have. Majority rule is NOT direct democracy.
Click to expand...

We have a democratically based republic. It was set up that way for a very good reason, and that is the lack of public virtue among the general populace. People will always choose their own interests over what is best for the nation.
 
Federalist said:
I'm sure our different opinions of Patrick Henry are based on our different ethical outlooks. I, like him, regard it as unethical to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

My opinion of Henry is a positive one. I would agree with both he and you if you lived upon your own self sustaining island. As you live in a cooperative society with 311 million others, each of which have rights which often overlap and conflict, there is unavoidable and inevitable balancing of these interests ..... and we call that living in a society.
 
Surtr said:
We have a democratically based republic. It was set up that way for a very good reason, and that is the lack of public virtue among the general populace. People will always choose their own interests over what is best for the nation.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain to he how your phrase A DEMOCRATICALLY BASED REPUBLIC is substantively different that my phrase of A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY BOUND BY A CONSTITUTION?
 
haymarket said:
My opinion of Henry is a positive one. I would agree with both he and you if you lived upon your own self sustaining island. As you live in a cooperative society with 311 million others, each of which have rights which often overlap and conflict, there is unavoidable and inevitable balancing of these interests ..... and we call that living in a society.
Click to expand...

Yes, when living is a society, it is imperative that each of us respect the life and property of others. This means not encroaching upon or undermining the life and property of others.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, when living is a society, it is imperative that each of us respect the life and property of others. This means not encroaching upon or undermining the life and property of others.
Click to expand...

Again, for a time beyond count or calculation, I strongly suspect you and I would not agree on what constitutes those limits.
 
haymarket said:
Again, for a time beyond count or calculation, I strongly suspect you and I would not agree on what constitutes those limits.
Click to expand...

Yes, you come down squarely in the "encroach upon and undermine" camp.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, you come down squarely in the "encroach upon and undermine" camp.
Click to expand...

And where is the evidence of this? Lets see my own posts where I advocate such a policy? And please do not waste my time by posting views that are reasonable issues that reasonable people simply see differently.

Lets see some honest to goodness posts by me where I advocate taking away peoples Constitutional rights.
 
haymarket said:
And where is the evidence of this? Lets see my own posts where I advocate such a policy? And please do not waste my time by posting views that are reasonable issues that reasonable people simply see differently.

Lets see some honest to goodness posts by me where I advocate taking away peoples Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Constitutional rights? We're not talking about Constitutional rights. We're talking about our different ethical outlooks. I said I regard it as unethical to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another. You, on the other hand, seem very happy to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others.

As one example, you seem to want to prohibit people from owning particular sorts of firearms, thus denying them the right to property.
 
Federalist said:
Constitutional rights? We're not talking about Constitutional rights. We're talking about our different ethical outlooks. I said I regard it as unethical to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another. You, on the other hand, seem very happy to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others.

As one example, you seem to want to prohibit people from owning particular sorts of firearms, thus denying them the right to property.
Click to expand...

Baloney. People can indeed own property. There is no right - Constitutional or ethical - to own any piece of anything you want no matter what its potential for harm and damage is to others. As such, you are creating a strawman.
 
haymarket said:
Baloney. People can indeed own property. There is no right - Constitutional or ethical - to own any piece of anything you want no matter what its potential for harm and damage is to others. As such, you are creating a strawman.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the sort of disagreement I was talking about. You clearly want to deny people the right to own particular sorts of firearms, while I respect their right to do so. Thus my statement about you and I being in two vastly different camps and my belief that Patrick Henry would "smell a rat" in your camp.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, this is the sort of disagreement I was talking about. You clearly want to deny people the right to own particular sorts of firearms, while I respect their right to do so. Thus my statement about you and I being in two vastly different camps and my belief that Patrick Henry would "smell a rat" in your camp.
Click to expand...

It is less than honest that you pretend to engage in me in so called intellectual discourse on topics such as the meaning of the word INFRINGED or how people learn right behaviors from wrong behaviors but only to a point. Once you have been bested on the actual issue - such as the original meaning of the word INFIRNGED or pointing out repeatedly that you were misrepresenting my views on learning by adding the word INNATE to my views - you then have to resort to attempting to falsely mischaracterizing me and demonizing me as a way to save face.

And that does not even begin to approach the issue of you being able to channel Patrick Henry - olfactory sensory abilities and all.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, this is the sort of disagreement I was talking about. You clearly want to deny people the right to own particular sorts of firearms, while I respect their right to do so.
Click to expand...
That's because you understand that simple purchase/ownership/posession of a firearm neither harms anyone nor places them in a condition of clear and present danger; as they do neither of these things, there is no sound argument to restrict the right of the law abiding to same.
 
Surtr said:
Could you please calm down?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. The two definitions are in caps to distinguish them from the other part of the post. I thought that would help you when you explained both of them together and told me the important differences between the two.
 
haymarket said:
It is less than honest that you pretend to engage in me in so called intellectual discourse on topics such as the meaning of the word INFRINGED or how people learn right behaviors from wrong behaviors but only to a point. Once you have been bested on the actual issue - such as the original meaning of the word INFIRNGED or pointing out repeatedly that you were misrepresenting my views on learning by adding the word INNATE to my views - you then have to resort to attempting to falsely mischaracterizing me and demonizing me as a way to save face.
Click to expand...
Your non-response to the actual content of my post is duly noted.

And that does not even begin to approach the issue of you being able to channel Patrick Henry - olfactory sensory abilities and all.
Click to expand...

I regard it unethical to encroach upon or undermine the life or property of others. You, apparently, have no such ethical prohibition, and are therefore happy to support the denial of people's ability to own particular sorts of firearms. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but hey, I'm not the one advocating the denial of property rights to others. If you don't like the way your position sounds, maybe you should take a look at it and see if it is truly ethical.
 
H. Lee White said:
That's because you understand that simple purchase/ownership/posession of a firearm neither harms anyone nor places them in a condition of clear and present danger; as they do neither of these things, there is no sound argument to restrict the right of the law abiding to same.
Click to expand...
Yes, the mere possession of a firearm effects nobody. Therefore there is no ethical reason to deny people the right to own such property.
 
Federalist said:
Your non-response to the actual content of my post is duly noted.
Click to expand...

My response to your attempt to deviate from the topic while resorting to unfair personal characterizations is indeed the central tactic that you have adopted. We all get that you dance with the angels as personified by your good friend with the amazing odor detection abilities - Patrick Henry - while I consort with the talking snake in the corner wearing the Leon Trotsky Halloween costume. Your efforts make that distinction loud and clear.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, the mere possession of a firearm effects nobody. Therefore there is no ethical reason to deny people the right to own such property.
Click to expand...

And one could say the same for the mere possession of an atomic bomb.
One could say the same for the mere possession of "safely secured" poisonous chemicals in large quantities in the middle of a neighborhood.
 
haymarket said:
My response to your attempt to deviate from the topic while resorting to unfair personal characterizations is indeed the central tactic that you have adopted. We all get that you dance with the angels as personified by your good friend Patrick Henry while I consort with the talking snake in the corner wearing the Leon Trotsky Halloween costume. Your efforts make that distinction loud and clear.
Click to expand...
My characterization is not unfair or inaccurate. You have said several times that you would like to deny people the ability to possess military grade firearms. This would represent an encroachment upon their right to own such property. It's pretty cut and dried. If you don't like the way it sounds, maybe there's a reason for that.
 
Federalist said:
My characterization is not unfair or inaccurate. You have said several times that you would like to deny people the ability to possess military grade firearms. This would represent an encroachment upon their right to own such property. It's pretty cut and dried. If you don't like the way it sounds, maybe there's a reason for that.
Click to expand...

So you say. But you also say that there is no such thing as any right for any American to have any weapon they want to have. We seem to be on the same side of that question.

So what we are talking about IS NOT some chasm of difference here. We are only differing about the fuzzy margins around the edges.

There is nothing about ENCROACHMENTS in the Constitution. Its a red herring made up by folks who are trying to hijack the actual meaning of the law and of the Constitution to what they want it to mean as a way of political and ideological empowerment. Not to mention monetary gain as well.
 
haymarket said:
So you say. But you also say that there is no such thing as any right for any American to have any weapon they want to have. We seem to be on the same side of that question.

So what we are talking about IS NOT some chasm of difference here. We are only differing about the fuzzy margins around the edges.
Click to expand...
No, we are talking about two fundamentally different political philosophies. My position is that it is ethically unjust to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another. You are willing to do so in order to achieve your political ends. This is the chasm between our two philosophies. I respect the life and property of my fellow man, while you are willing to undermine, encroach upon, or outright deny life and property to your fellow man, depending on your political objectives.

There is nothing about ENCROACHMENTS in the Constitution. Its a red herring made up by folks who are trying to hijack the actual meaning of the law and of the Constitution to what they want it to mean as a way of political and ideological empowerment. Not to mention monetary gain as well.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution? We're not talking about the Constitution here.
 
Federalist said:
No, we are talking about two fundamentally different political philosophies. My position is that it is ethically unjust to undermine or encroach upon the life or property of another. You are willing to do so in order to achieve your political ends. This is the chasm between our two philosophies. I respect the life and property of my fellow man, while you are willing to undermine, encroach upon, or outright deny life and property to your fellow man, depending on your political objectives.


Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution? We're not talking about the Constitution here.
Click to expand...

So you should no difficulty in any way shape or from to tell the world what
1- my political philosophy is
2- my political ends are
3- my political objectives are

Since you made them the centerpiece of you post, lets see you expound on these with some evidence.

After you satisfactorily accomplish that task, perhaps then we can deal with the Constitution that you seem to now want to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom