• 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!

Constitutional Rights -

Indian Giver said:
I think that people who voted for Hillary removed their minds beforehand.
Click to expand...

I think that the 2016 presidential candidates were possibly the worst in American History. Literally the bottom feeders of the political pool.

The question people should be asking themselves is how the hell did Hillary Clinton an Donald Trump wind up with the nominations?

So many Trump supporters claim that they voted for Trump based on what they believed to be his fundamental qualifications and merits to be president. I call, BULL****! They voted against Hillary. A mentally challenged person should have known Trump's reputation as an unscrupulous, narcissistic, megalomaniac who only lives in Trump World. Everybody else are his serfs.

Hillary carries her own nasty, unscrupulous luggage. The Clinton's want people to believe that they've "earned" their power and wealth when the truth is that they, via every means possible, have manipulated their way into the world of the privileged. But make no mistake into believing otherwise, so many voters who voted for Hillary was a vote against Trump.

One of the core problems in our system of selecting candidates is....

Only 14 to 16% of the voters are selecting the candidates during the primaries. The candidate vetting process isn't disseminated to the public. The political machines (strongly influenced by the lobby communities) try to get candidates on the ballots so it's a win for them regardless of who makes the primary cuts.

Would you vote for Steve Bannon or Anthony Scaramucci for president?

Would you vote for George Soros or Maxine Waters for president?

If the nominees were Bannon and Soros who would you vote for?

Why would these folks wind up in the primaries, much less be nominees?
 
Indian Giver said:
Why not?

I would not vote for Waters.

Bannon. Soros is not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible, like Obama.
Click to expand...

Awwwwwh, Bummer!

You would actually vote for Anthony? Seriously?
 
Indian Giver said:
Sure I am, but you didn't ask a concrete question.
Click to expand...

Then obviously my original post was over your head. Your following replies weren't addressing the greater issue. The hypothetical candidate/nominee questions were to illustrate a thinking point, with no direct rely needed.

That said, why did you vote for Trump?
 
Indian Giver said:
Assumes "facts" not in evidence.
Click to expand...

If you believe his conduct was just assumed and there was no evidence, then you either didn't invest the time to actually check out the evidence (his dishonest business practices and personal behaviors) or you personally assumed and bought into his campaign propaganda and lies that are in fact provable to be partial to complete lies.
 
The Resister said:
So, the rest of the world is ignorant just because they disagree with your views? I would say this:

China has been instituting free market principles and trying to hold onto socialism. But, they realize that the free market is the key to their growth:

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

Meanwhile, as China seeks to incorporate free market principles, America has become more and more socialist, discarding the free market ideology and paying a heavy price.
Click to expand...

Do you think that because China is less socialist and the US more, that the Chinese are better off?

Silly notion that, and not the least bit logical. The Chinese have today and will have tomorrow a massive amount of people living below the poverty-threshold because there is simply no way out.

The US has "only" 14% of its population, which is massive in an American context because it means close to 40 million men, women and children. It is not acceptable that we allow that much of our population do live in such miserable conditions. And not just because it provokes one of the highest crime rates of any advanced economy.

But because it is indecent to let anyone live such a life ...
 
Lafayette said:
From "the Economist Explains": How America’s courts can keep the government in check

Excerpt:

Shall we add Trump to that list of three names?

As a constitutional wrecking-ball I cannot imagine a more willing or able PotUS. Besides, who would dare question him?

He thinks he walks on water ...
Click to expand...

That analysis is off. Judicial review was not established by MvM. By the time MvM rolled around, SCOTUS had already ruled that they had the power of judicial review, and it was not seriously contested (AFAIK, it was not contested at all). What MvM established was the judicial review included the power to overrule Congress ( as opposed to overruling state laws) when and if they passed legislation that was unconstitutional.

Judicial review was established by the Constitutional Convention by inserting into the Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Click to expand...
 
Lafayette said:
Do you think that because China is less socialist and the US more, that the Chinese are better off?

Silly notion that, and not the least bit logical. The Chinese have today and will have tomorrow a massive amount of people living below the poverty-threshold because there is simply no way out.

The US has "only" 14% of its population, which is massive in an American context because it means close to 40 million men, women and children. It is not acceptable that we allow that much of our population do live in such miserable conditions. And not just because it provokes one of the highest crime rates of any advanced economy.

But because it is indecent to let anyone live such a life ...
Click to expand...

Put America to work. End the welfare state. Socialism don't work.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The Electoral College defied nothing. The total popular vote margin was 20th out of the 58 elections. Uncle Sam doesn't have the power to change the Electoral College, your blind ignorance appears to be complete--until your reply.
Click to expand...

You've got the numbers wrong - dead wrong. See here: How Powerful Is Your Vote? - excerpt:
The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.)

The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters. (Mouse over the map and it will show you where your state ranks in voting power.)
Click to expand...

The fact that states some vary in the number of Electoral Voters in proportion to popular-vote means that their votes are more important (than the voting population). That is crass unfairness at its worst. And belies the meaning of the word "democracy".

From here:
... are we really prepared to say that potential convenience justifies counting citizens of Wyoming four times more than residents of California? The average white citizen 9% more than the average Hispanic? If so, our society needs to ask itself why it is prepared to sacrifice justice on the altar of expediency.
Click to expand...

Or here: Electoral College Is Viciously, Unnecessarily Undemocratic - excerpt:
The electoral college, by contrast, is gratuitously, inexcusably undemocratic. It wasn’t always so. The original electoral college, which lasted only through the first four presidential elections, was a beautiful idea. It resembled the way a university chooses a new professor, and it had the same virtues. Rather than have the entire university vote, a committee or electoral board is set up. The committee members take their responsibility seriously. They meticulously scan the CVs of all the candidates, read their books and papers, solicit references from people who know them well, make them give a lecture to test their speaking skills, interview them, and spend hours in committee arguing about their merits and shortcomings. Finally, when all such information has been digested and mulled over, the committee votes.

The original, 18th-century electoral college was like that: a true electoral college. The members were elected within their own state, and it made sense that populous states should have more members. But the point was that the people didn’t elect presidents directly. They elected them indirectly, via a “college” of respected citizens who, unlike the populace at large, were expected to exercise well-informed due diligence before casting their definitive votes.

The rot set in when electoral college members were pledged to vote for named presidential candidates rather than exercising their own informed judgment. Such pledging renders pointless the whole idea of a true electoral college—the general population might as well vote for their president directly, rather than indirectly via a delegate pledged to him. But the truly pernicious innovation was the all-or-none rule. Except in Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral college votes go to the candidate with a majority of the popular vote in the state, regardless of how slender that majority was. This injustice is not an inevitable byproduct of something defensible, as it would be if, say, the House of Representatives exercised the choice of president. It is a gratuitous, eminently avoidable injustice which could be abolished at a stroke.
Click to expand...

Enough is enough. The Electoral College, along with Gerrymandering, has to go if the US is to become a truly "democratic nation".

Until then, the US is like any third-world country where BigMoney decides who heads the government. We need and we deserve a simple plebiscite where the popular vote - as in our Legislative bodies - decides who is the PotUS ...
 
The Resister said:
Put America to work. End the welfare state. Socialism don't work.
Click to expand...

Any more empty one-liner sarcasm?

This "Debate" forum really doesn't have enough.

(Maybe you'd be happier on a Message Board somewhere on the South Pole ... ?)
 
Lafayette said:
You've got the numbers wrong - dead wrong. See here: How Powerful Is Your Vote? - excerpt:

The fact that states some vary in the number of Electoral Voters in proportion to popular-vote means that their votes are more important (than the voting population). That is crass unfairness at its worst. And belies the meaning of the word "democracy".

From here:

Or here: Electoral College Is Viciously, Unnecessarily Undemocratic - excerpt:

Enough is enough. The Electoral College, along with Gerrymandering, has to go if the US is to become a truly "democratic nation".

Until then, the US is like any third-world country where BigMoney decides who heads the government. We need and we deserve a simple plebiscite where the popular vote - as in our Legislative bodies - decides who is the PotUS ...
Click to expand...

Diatribe with no relevant point and another Trumpian deflection. Stomping your feet won't change it as I pointed out, Uncle Sam can't change it. Unicorns will poop candy before there will be any Constitutional change to the Electoral College process. At least we have a say in our head of government, unlike many other countries.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Diatribe with no relevant point and another Trumpian deflection. Stomping your feet won't change it as I pointed out, Uncle Sam can't change it. Unicorns will poop candy before there will be any Constitutional change to the Electoral College process. At least we have a say in our head of government, unlike many other countries.
Click to expand...
If change comes to the EC, it won't come for some, perhaps many, years.
 
Lafayette said:
Any more empty one-liner sarcasm?

This "Debate" forum really doesn't have enough.

(Maybe you'd be happier on a Message Board somewhere on the South Pole ... ?)
Click to expand...

Other people are already beating you up. Are you a glutton for punishment?
 
Lafayette said:
False! See here from "FactCheck.org": Trump's Fanciful Iran Negotiation - excerpt:

Trump lied his way into the presidency, and an Electoral College defied the Popular-Vote and allowed a defeated candidate to win. Hillary was defeated in the Electoral College* and yet won the popular vote by one of the highest margins in history of presidential elections!

Seven months into his tenure and the country is sick, sick, sick of Donald Dork's antics. Moreover, this guy is going to lose the Right both houses of Congress next year. Mark my words ...

*The Electoral College is and always has been a sham democratic election process. It is disproportional and highly manipulable. Uncle Sam would do better to rid himself of this dangerous handicap to a pluralistic democracy ...
Click to expand...

why did you necro this stupid thread? the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do.
 
ELECTORAL MACHINATION

TurtleDude said:
why did you necro this stupid thread? the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Since you do not obviously understand English, I will write slowly: The Electoral College is a miscarriage of democracy, since it allows the election of a PotUS to be "manipulated". For instance, it is unconscionable that a vote in a presidential election in California should have less weight in the electoral college than a vote in Idaho. It is also unacceptable that political boundaries should be "gerrymandered" in order to prefer voting of any particular party. Geographical voting patterns should remain "natural" - ie. systemic to the voting process and not manipulated by arcane divisions that consolidate votes uniformly across an electoral map to produce particular results!

The foundational essence of the popular-vote anywhere ELSE in the world of developed nations on earth is based upon the simple majority of the electoral popular-vote. That is, the total number of votes for any particular National Candidate as the Executive political-head within a country. (Typically known as a "President" who presides, or a "Prime Minister" head of the majority party in the Legislature.)

Just when are you (plural) going to understand these simple definitions in the English-language?

My take? Perhaps never, because you (plural) actually enjoy/prefer the results of the electoral machination perpetrated ...
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Diatribe with no relevant point and another Trumpian deflection. Stomping your feet won't change it as I pointed out, Uncle Sam can't change it. Unicorns will poop candy before there will be any Constitutional change to the Electoral College process. At least we have a say in our head of government, unlike many other countries.
Click to expand...

And you are in self-denial.

Your "say" in the electoral process is being manipulated by BigMoney (with the intent of maintaining the status-quo of unfair upper-income taxation) and all you have to write in defense are tired platitudes.

And you underestimate the force of the Popular Voice once it reaches crescendo. You have a harsh awakening ahead of you.

Wakey, wakey ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom