• 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!

The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

So nothing tangible, just partisan talking points from you.

There are 4 trillion reasons that are absolutely tangible: The 4 Trillion dollars of increased wealth in the pockets of American investors.

Now, I know that to a Never-Trumper, the real world is not a real thing.

However, those who ignore reality are doomed to suffer.

You might want to open your eyes to the world around you and take advantage of the opportunities it presents.
 
There are 4 trillion reasons that are absolutely tangible
Yet you can not provide a single one that can show that what Trump did had a direct result.

Now, I know that to a Never-Trumper, the real world is not a real thing.
The only one having problems with reality is you.

However, those who ignore reality are doomed to suffer.
Indeed.

You might want to open your eyes to the world around you and take advantage of the opportunities it presents.
I always do.
 
Yet you can not provide a single one that can show that what Trump did had a direct result.

The only one having problems with reality is you.

Indeed.

I always do.

And yet you deny reality.

The Dow Jones rose at a documented rate during the 8 years following the Obama first term election and that rate anuallized rate was 980 points per year.

The Dow rose at a documented rate during the 8 months following the Trump first term election and that annualized rate was 4425.

What actual, real world evidence do you present to support your other worldly fantasies?

Dow Jones - 100 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends
 
And yet you deny reality.
I am denying nothing, you are posting lies.

The Dow Jones rose at a documented rate during the 8 years following the Obama first term election and that rate anuallized rate was 980 points per year.

The Dow rose at a documented rate during the 8 months following the Trump first term election and that annualized rate was 4425.
Yet you can not specify a specific thing or things that Trump did that caused it. Sentiment is nice but it can not sustain anything in the long run and fact remains that Trump has not accomplished a single meningful thing to date.

What actual, real world evidence do you present to support
What have I asserted that needs support?
 
Ah-ha! So advertising is not employed in any political campaigns outside of the Federal Presidential Campaign! Wow! This explains everything! EVERYTHING!

Eliminate the Electoral College and we will no longer suffer through campaign ads.

Your grasp of the use of advertising and its connection to the Electoral College is revolutionary and unique!

And you do not grasp the fact that sarcasm is never a good rebuttal.

D-

Try harder ...

PS: Dump the Electoral College and we just might get a Real Democracy ...
 
I am denying nothing, you are posting lies.

Yet you can not specify a specific thing or things that Trump did that caused it. Sentiment is nice but it can not sustain anything in the long run and fact remains that Trump has not accomplished a single meningful thing to date.

What have I asserted that needs support?

You asserted that the actual, real world, documented rise of the stock markets was nothing more than talking points.

I had previously asserted that the rise of the stock markets was a good way to measure the presence or absence of hope.

Trump's election and his drive to decrease regulation, reform our Byzantine system of taxation and renegotiate trade deals are the drivers of the hope.

YOU asserted that these actions did nothing to drive the hope that is evidenced in the rise of the stock markets to a pace that is more than quadrupled from the Obama years.

THAT is the assertion that you need to support.
 
And you do not grasp the fact that sarcasm is never a good rebuttal.

D-

Try harder ...

PS: Dump the Electoral College and we just might get a Real Democracy ...

The problem is that the Electoral College exists precisely to eliminate real democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

We do not live in a "REAL DEMOCRACY". We live in a Federal Republic.

You are calling for a Constitutional Convention.
 
The problem is that the Electoral College exists precisely to eliminate real democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

We do not live in a "REAL DEMOCRACY". We live in a Federal Republic.

You are calling for a Constitutional Convention.

Bollocks, your "tyranny of the majority".

Where, ever, did you get such nonsense. From the Replicant School of Addle-headed Political Nonsense.

The essence of any democracy is the popular-vote. It is its life-blood. Otherwise, as happened with the Electoral College, what a nation gets is a Donald Dork and his unmitigated narcissism ...
 
Bollocks, your "tyranny of the majority".

Where, ever, did you get such nonsense. From the Replicant School of Addle-headed Political Nonsense.

The essence of any democracy is the popular-vote. It is its life-blood. Otherwise, as happened with the Electoral College, what a nation gets is a Donald Dork and his unmitigated narcissism ...

Apparently the righties prefer the TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. :doh:roll:

Actually majority rule with observance of minority rights is not tyranny at all. But the Trumpkins and righties seem to overlook that simple reality.
 
The problem is that the Electoral College exists precisely to eliminate real democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

We do not live in a "REAL DEMOCRACY". We live in a Federal Republic.

You are calling for a Constitutional Convention.
You should read a dictionary.

Republic
re·pub·lic noun

* a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


* a group with a certain equality between its members.​


We are a federation of states with a republic form of government.
 
You should read a dictionary.

re·pub·lic noun

* a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic

* a group with a certain equality between its members.​


We are a federation of states with a republic form of government.

Do you think that is a fair tactic when you introduce evidence based on reality instead of the beliefs have because they want to have them?
 
Do you think that is a fair tactic when you introduce evidence based on reality instead of the beliefs have because they want to have them?

I love popping their bubbles. :)
 
Bollocks, your "tyranny of the majority".

Where, ever, did you get such nonsense. From the Replicant School of Addle-headed Political Nonsense.

The essence of any democracy is the popular-vote. It is its life-blood. Otherwise, as happened with the Electoral College, what a nation gets is a Donald Dork and his unmitigated narcissism ...

That you don't know this phrase is not at all surprising.

It has been used in various forms since Hellenistic Greece. It was widely considered at the founding of our Federal Republic. It seems to have slipped through your grasp of this topic.

You also seem to lack even a basic understanding of our form of government.

Lacking any understanding of these concepts leaves you confused and ignorant.

I assume you're a Democrat.
 
You should read a dictionary.

Republic
re·pub·lic noun

* a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


* a group with a certain equality between its members.​


We are a federation of states with a republic form of government.

Exactly.

EVERYTHING you wrote supports my post.

In our Republic, EVERY STATE, as a member of the whole, is equal to each of the others. One of the most explicit expressions of this equality of the various members is the Electoral College.

Did you mean to oppose my views? If yes, you failed.

I do thank you for your endorsement.
 
Exactly.

EVERYTHING you wrote supports my post.

In our Republic, EVERY STATE, as a member of the whole, is equal to each of the others. One of the most explicit expressions of this equality of the various members is the Electoral College.

Did you mean to oppose my views? If yes, you failed.

I do thank you for your endorsement.

You didn't have a clue what a "republic" is....and you still don't.
 
That you don't know this phrase is not at all surprising. It was widely considered at the founding of our Federal Republic. It seems to have slipped through your grasp of this topic.

You also seem to lack even a basic understanding of our form of government. Lacking any understanding of these concepts leaves you confused and ignorant.

I assume you're a Democrat.

The history of "your phrase" is irrelevant today - you are anchored in a two-century past that is no longer relevant. It's just anecdotal history, far less important than the present.

You (obviously) are ignorant of the fact that democracy means "all of the people, all of the time" - not segregated into those who have a lot and those who'd like to have a lot - and then the rest (40 million American men, women and children) who are living below the poverty threshold.

I am a Social Democrat - of which you are apparently ignorant. So, here is its definition:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism leading to greater democratic, egalitarian and consensus outcomes. The movement is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

You are anchored in the past defending a once-upon-a-time construction of America's republican democracy. Which erred in two destructive ways:
*The first was the Electoral College, which has no justification for the manipulation of the national popular vote.
*The second being gerrymandering that falsifies state local voting, again to manipulate the popular-vote.

Your republic has no relevancy whatsoever because it manipulates the popular vote to support a Rightist governance on both the national and statewide levels!

This last election was proof-positive of that fact ...
 
Last edited:
Apparently the righties prefer the TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. :doh:roll:

Actually majority rule with observance of minority rights is not tyranny at all. But the Trumpkins and righties seem to overlook that simple reality.

Majority rule is the "heart-blood" of any democracy. What infects that heart-blood is the manipulation of majority-rule of the popular vote by means of the Electoral College AND Gerrymandering.

No other country on earth (that I know of) manipulates the popular-vote in that party-collusive manner. It is not really a matter of "who is worse at manipulating the mechanism". Both parties do it because "that's the name of the game" under current rules.

It's time for Americans to become aware as to how dishonestly the game is played. A national referendum could do a world of good by renouncing the 12th amendment. Gerrymandering can be done away with by Congress.

Aint gonna happin? Yes, I am afraid so - not until Americans wake-up to the facts and WANT to change voting procedures ...
 
Majority rule is the "heart-blood" of any democracy. What infects that heart-blood is the manipulation of majority-rule of the popular vote by means of the Electoral College AND Gerrymandering

I'd say the nigh unlimited proliferation of private money in public office is far more deleterious to US democracy.
 
You didn't have a clue what a "republic" is....and you still don't.

When the ignorant condemn based on their ignorance, it's really vary amusing. Sometimes it's also dangerous.

How can you post the definition of a Republic and STILL not get it? Didn't you read your own post?

I'll type slowly so you might understand: THE MEMBERS OF OUR FEDERAL REPUBLIC ARE THE VARIOUS STATES.

That will help if you can read.
 
The history of "your phrase" is irrelevant today - you are anchored in a two-century past that is no longer relevant. It's just anecdotal history, far less important than the present.

You (obviously) are ignorant of the fact that democracy means "all of the people, all of the time" - not segregated into those who have a lot and those who'd like to have a lot - and then the rest (40 million American men, women and children) who are living below the poverty threshold.

I am a Social Democrat - of which you are apparently ignorant. So, here is its definition:


You are anchored in the past defending a once-upon-a-time construction of America's republican democracy. Which erred in two destructive ways:
*The first was the Electoral College, which has no justification for the manipulation of the national popular vote.
*The second being gerrymandering that falsifies state local voting, again to manipulate the popular-vote.

Your republic has no relevancy whatsoever because it manipulates the popular vote to support a Rightist governance on both the national and statewide levels!

This last election was proof-positive of that fact ...

All of what you posted is the drivel of fantasy.

The real world and your perception of the real world are not connected to each other in any way.

This will not end well for you.

However, if you clap your hands and really, I mean really, believe, Tinkerbell will not die.
 
Majority rule is the "heart-blood" of any democracy. What infects that heart-blood is the manipulation of majority-rule of the popular vote by means of the Electoral College AND Gerrymandering.

No other country on earth (that I know of) manipulates the popular-vote in that party-collusive manner. It is not really a matter of "who is worse at manipulating the mechanism". Both parties do it because "that's the name of the game" under current rules.

It's time for Americans to become aware as to how dishonestly the game is played. A national referendum could do a world of good by renouncing the 12th amendment. Gerrymandering can be done away with by Congress.

Aint gonna happin? Yes, I am afraid so - not until Americans wake-up to the facts and WANT to change voting procedures ...

A national referendum to amend the Constitution?

Were you born clueless or have you just lost all of your clues along the way?

Federalism, as defined in our Constitution, demands that the various states determine the preference of their citizens and that the preferences of the various states then be reflected by the votes of the Electors in the Electoral College.

The system to determine that preference within each of the states is pretty much left open to be determined by each of the various states.

You seem to want to change this without understanding what it is, why it is or how this is a pretty ingenious method to maintain the union.

Absent Gerrymandering, how would you propose that Congressional districts be defined?

Are there any thinking individuals that do not understand that politics is a corrupt and corrupting arrangement of influence peddling and power brokering?

The answer is NOT to contrive a system, as you suggest, that further centralizes power to the remote central location of Washington DC.

The answer is to reverse the trend of the last 100 years and return the power to the people.

The answer is not to figure out a new way to choose the powerful chief executive. The answer is to strip the power from the DC Complex.

The best government is the government closest to the inspection of those governed.
 
Majority rule is the "heart-blood" of any democracy. What infects that heart-blood is the manipulation of majority-rule of the popular vote by means of the Electoral College AND Gerrymandering.

No other country on earth (that I know of) manipulates the popular-vote in that party-collusive manner. It is not really a matter of "who is worse at manipulating the mechanism". Both parties do it because "that's the name of the game" under current rules.

It's time for Americans to become aware as to how dishonestly the game is played. A national referendum could do a world of good by renouncing the 12th amendment. Gerrymandering can be done away with by Congress.

Aint gonna happin? Yes, I am afraid so - not until Americans wake-up to the facts and WANT to change voting procedures ...

People in several states are taking the initiative to get rid of gerrymandering themselves and going around the self serving politicians.

As for the EC, until the Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, they will fight to the death to keep what they see as a political advantage and never to get rid of the EC.
 
When the ignorant condemn based on their ignorance, it's really vary amusing. Sometimes it's also dangerous.

How can you post the definition of a Republic and STILL not get it? Didn't you read your own post?

I'll type slowly so you might understand: THE MEMBERS OF OUR FEDERAL REPUBLIC ARE THE VARIOUS STATES.

That will help if you can read.

THE VARIOUS STATES are comprised of people. Without the people who comprise the various states, there are no states to do anything.

It all comes back to the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom