• 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!

A cry from a woman's heart

We shall see, what November brings.
Seriously doubt trump will be empeached unless something very dramatic happens, I doubt they could get it done by 2020, and after that I think he is just past bad history.

Like you said - we shall see. I expect the Mueller report to be so damning with ironclad connections to Russia that the House will have no choice if it is under Democratic majority.
 
Kennedy will be replaced before November. The Dems will get the House, the Senate is doubtful but it will make it almost a 50/50 split which will be enough to put trump on a very short leash.

I'll be praying for all that this Sunday.

The man's a walking public catastrophe ...
 
And here you are again not making a debate...

Yes, it happens a lot around here.

When Rightist Dorks start posting drivel, the exchange becomes hopeless.

Better to walk just away ...
 
And here you are again not making a debate...

You don't even understand the meaning of the word, "debate". So, here you go: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which ...

Keywords, "formal discussion": Meaning arguments that are poised and factful. Not just turgid displays of angst, anger or spurious reasoning based upon personal experience.

And I could give a damn what you have to say about that remark, because the next idle-remark accusing me of "not debating" and you go "Ignore".

Just stick to the subject of the debate (which are often complex enough) and keep personal remarks to yourself ...
 
I would expect the Senate to be 53 R - 47 D after the election. And the House should go Dem giving them perhaps a ten seat advantage.

Then sit back and wait for the investigations and impeachment to dominate the next two years until the next election day in 2020.

You forget to add that this mess is entirely the responsibility of the Electoral College that did not and cannot function uniquely based upon the popular-vote!

For more than two centuries the US has ignored this pollution of real-democracy, and it is now that we should attend to that shortcoming. But, not only the EC - there's gerrymandering and the excessive use of moneyed-politics to influence opinion. Worse yet, finagling of opinion works to win elections!

So, yes, power in the US can be bought - just invest enough in turgidly stoopid campaign-commercials and people come around in their thinking.

How does that happen? From the population's basically missing instruction in Civics. We are now paying the high-price of that oversight in our secondary-schooling education over the past 30/40 years.

From WashPo: Many Americans know nothing about their government - excerpt:

A new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania finds that things are getting worse: Just a quarter of Americans in the nationally representative survey could name all three branches of government — the worst showing on that question in six years. And this is even worse: Nearly a third could not name a single branch of government.

Among the findings:

Nearly 4 in 10 (39 percent) incorrectly said that the Constitution gives the president the power to declare war. Just more than half (54 percent) knew that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
A vast majority (83 percent) correctly said that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes.
A majority (77 percent) know that the Constitution says that Congress cannot establish an official religion — though almost 1 in 10 agreed with the statement that the Constitution says, “Congress can outlaw atheism because the United States is one country under God.”

From The Atlantic, here: EDUCATION - Ignorance Does Not Lead to Election Bliss

Excerpt:
While there surely are many varied causes for the current American political situation, one among those is the relative ignorance of basic American history, scientific, technological knowledge, and what some refer to as “civics” among a large sector of our population. It is testimony to the failure of the country’s education system that a high percentage of the voting-age population is simply ignorant of basic facts—knowledge that necessary to act reasonably and rationally in the political process.

This void isn’t limited to those with little education or those without significant professional achievements. It is telling, for example, that in 2009, 89 percent of those who took a test on civic knowledge expressed confidence they could pass it; in fact, 83 percent would have failed.

In short, as I’ve written in the past, the public’s limited knowledge—or even what the psychologist William James called “acquaintance with knowledge”—is neither monopolized by the poorly educated nor found only among certain social classes. This illiteracy has created a void that is easily filled by those with anti-science, anti-intellectual, and demagogic leanings.
 
Last edited:
You forget to add that this mess is entirely the responsibility of the Electoral College that did not and cannot function uniquely based upon the popular-vote!

The Electoral College has not functioned as Hamilton promised the nation it would in Federalist 68. Had they done so in 2016, they would have denied Trump the office as he was the creature of a foreign adversary that Madison warned the nation would be its greatest threat.

from Hamiltons Federalist 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

There is not one shred of evidence that even one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed this threat. Not a single one.
 
You forget to add that this mess is entirely the responsibility of the Electoral College that did not and cannot function uniquely based upon the popular-vote!

For more than two centuries the US has ignored this pollution of real-democracy, and it is now that the people should attend to it. But, not only the EC - there's gerrymandering and the excessive use of moneyed-politics. Yes, power in the US can be bought - just invest enough in turgidly stoopid campaign-commercials and people come around in their thinking.

How does that happen? From a basically missing instruction in Civics of the population. We are now paying the high-price of that oversight in our secondary-schooling education over the past 30/40 years. From The Atlantic, here: EDUCATION - Ignorance Does Not Lead to Election Bliss

Excerpt:

The EC has been around over 200 years. If the Democrats haven't figured it out by now, it's more a reflection of Democrat thinking than anything inherently wrong with the system.

Ignorance Does Not Lead to Election Bliss You're correct, sir.
 
The Electoral College has not functioned as Hamilton promised the nation it would in Federalist 68. Had they done so in 2016, they would have denied Trump the office as he was the creature of a foreign adversary that Madison warned the nation would be its greatest threat.

Hamilton, I think, was thinking about the British Crown. Not all upon the defeat of England in the Revolutionary War were partisans of an "America". There were some who wished to remain faithful to the Crown. About 20% of the colonials left, most to Canada that remained British. Some in the south went further south and ended up on Caribbean islands (also belonging to Britain).

North to the snow, south to the sun.

The French-speaking in and around New Orleans became Americans when Napoleon sold the Louisiana Pürchase to the US. (I brought some French customers to New Orleans once and they were keen to meet the "Yanks of French origin". So, we went looking for a Creole Band, and I invited them meet the French. I spent the whole evening translating from one group to the other! The French French could not understand the Cajun French.)
 
Last edited:
There is not one shred of evidence that even one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed this threat. Not a single one.

Of course not. Nobody is willing to question the status-quo.

They accept it like lakeys ... and, of course, the consequences are all theirs.

Donald Dork is not yet done. There's worse to come ...
 
The Electoral College has not functioned as Hamilton promised the nation it would in Federalist 68. Had they done so in 2016, they would have denied Trump the office as he was the creature of a foreign adversary that Madison warned the nation would be its greatest threat.

There is not one shred of evidence that even one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed this threat. Not a single one.

In a way, that's understandable given the political situation at the time.

The southern states (at the revolutionary beginning of the nation) new full-well that the major part of European migrants were moving into the northern part of the country. And in the south, almost entire based upon agricultural cotton needed large amounts of manpower to produce and sell it. They could get that manpower at a reasonable price nowhere else except slavers from Africa.

This was the central problem then, and (frankly) still is today, confronting America. What to do about the blacks, who are asking the same question, "What about us!" Why is it that the blacks remain as part of the working population at the bottom of the pay-grid. See here:
screen%20shot%202013-09-17%20at%201.22.26%20pm.png


OK, OK - I can read it already. Cuz they don't TRY hard enough!

I disagree - those blacks who do get into post-secondary education succeed just as well. It has nothing to do with either willingness or brain-size.

There is another gating factor staring us in the face, and we do not want to admit it. It is that the high-cost of a tertiary-education in our state-schools is preventing the poorest of us from entering ...
 
The Electoral College has not functioned as Hamilton promised the nation it would in Federalist 68. Had they done so in 2016, they would have denied Trump the office as he was the creature of a foreign adversary that Madison warned the nation would be its greatest threat.

There is not one shred of evidence that even one of the fifty state electors meetings even discussed this threat. Not a single one.

In a way, that's understandable given the political situation at the time.

The southern states (at the revolutionary beginning of the nation) new full-well that the major part of European migrants were moving into the northern part of the country. And in the south, almost entire based upon agricultural cotton needed large amounts of manpower to produce and sell it. They could get that manpower at a reasonable price nowhere else except slavers from Africa.

This was the central problem then, and (frankly) still is today, confronting America. What to do about the blacks, who are asking the same question, "What about us!" Why is it that the blacks remain as part of the working population at the bottom of the pay-grid. See here:
screen%20shot%202013-09-17%20at%201.22.26%20pm.png


OK, OK - I can read it already. Cuz they don't TRY hard enough!

I disagree - those blacks who do get into post-secondary education succeed just as well. It has nothing to do with either willingness or brain-size.

There is another gating factor that is there staring us in the face, and we do not want to accept it. It is that the high-cost of a tertiary-education in our state-schools is preventing the poorest of us from entering ...
 
SO WHAT IS THE COST OF A TERTIARY-LEVEL EDUCATION AT A PUBLIC SCHOOL?

My post above prompted me to ask the above question. And the answer aint eazy.

But, I'll have a go at a preliminary estimate by making some very general assumptions in order see how the numbers work-out.

Because Hillary had adopted Bernie's idea (that he'd got from Europe) to make tertiary-level education free, gratis and for nothing. For every household below the median wage - which is about $56.5K per family. So, what percentage of households have less than the median wage?

Looking at this chart here, I'd say it's around a third of the total population. So, what is the total population in terms of "households"? It's about 126 million, so a third of that is 126/3= 42 million.

And how many kids per family. The average is 2.4. But, what is the likelihood that both would be going to post-secondary education in any given year. Only one of them per family. So, the number is actually closer to 1.2 children per family.

At the very most the Federal government would be responsible for free post-secondary education (vocational, 2 or 4-year or more) for 50 million American children. So, how much is the average cost of a post-secondary education at a state school in America?

The Federal Government would reimburse the total public-school tertiary-level educational cost estimated as such (from here):
According to College Board, published tuition fees for 2017/18 at state colleges are an average of US$9,970 for state residents

So, teaching at a tertiary-level education 50 million American children at a state-university would cost annually about $500B.

The DoD budget for this year is $639B ...

PS: If you see any mistakes in the above, please reply!
 
Last edited:
Oh really.

Who elected YOU King of America?

Do explain for the rest of us mere mortals ...

See, this is where you go every time someone offers a opposing opinion or fact.


Where is your proof that RvW is going to be overturned?
 
You don't even understand the meaning of the word, "debate". So, here you go: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which ...

Keywords, "formal discussion": Meaning arguments that are poised and factful. Not just turgid displays of angst, anger or spurious reasoning based upon personal experience.

And I could give a damn what you have to say about that remark, because the next idle-remark accusing me of "not debating" and you go "Ignore".

Just stick to the subject of the debate (which are often complex enough) and keep personal remarks to yourself ...

You are not debating..
 
From Elizabeth Warren:




If the RIGHT wants to bring back abortion women will "call God" to assure that it is what HE wants, and then register the conversation on YouTube. (Oh mah gawd!)

This is clearly an instance where the fanatically religious want to interfere with an individual's fundamental right to do with their body as they see fit. After all, who else's is it? Certainly not the state's and therefore not subscribed to any government law - and government law applies to only living beings. (Where in the Constitution does it give the right of life to unborn babies?)

Life does not begin from the moment of conception. In the womb, it begins much later at a date "of vitalization" that no one can apparently agree upon. But in the earliest stages it is not a "self-sustaining living being" and abortion should be permitted in the first few months.


And for those who think abortion does pertain to the "right of life" they can explain to us why we abort the lives of animal fetuses in slaughter-houses, when we go hunting or in the laboratories. Animals are not covered by the law, but we human animals are? (One sees that metaphor the arbitrariness of the abortion question.)

We need a solid set of rules for this issue, but on the above "question" some are more stringent (and I am being polite) than others.

In Catholic France a woman legally may terminate HER pregnancy before the limit of 12 weeks and the fees thereto are covered by the National Health Service that cannot refuse the operation*... !

*Though French Catholic-doctors have the right to refuse the operation, but they must refer the person to another doctor who will.

Darn right a woman should do with her body as she sees fit. Prostitution should be legal!!! Drug use should be legal !!! Selling body organs should be legal !!!!!! I'm for all of that..... women have rights don't you know!!
 
Darn right a woman should do with her body as she sees fit. Prostitution should be legal!!! Drug use should be legal !!! Selling body organs should be legal !!!!!! I'm for all of that..... women have rights don't you know!!

Well, there are "conditions", but in general you're right. All these "freedoms" are restricted by the Rabid Right who think that church doctrine (Thou shalt not kill!) also makes for good laws.

First, let's see God on earth first-hand for a nice long chat; then we'll decide whether the Ten Commandments should rule in all such matters above and beyond Common Law. For the moment, it's Common Law that prevails. (Thank God! ;^)

PS: That's the problem with all religions. They espouse first that there is a deity, and then that THEY are the only ones who can truly interpret HIS laws. (First of all. Why is "God" everywhere a male?)
 
Back
Top Bottom