The end of Democracy?

[Sean Renaud]

Obama was definitely legal. There is no reason to believe Trump wasn't but I'd love to see that birth certificate. I know where babies are supposed to come out so if his mom had a C-Section and incredibly stupid argument could be made that he 'wasn't naturally born'. As for Arnold according to the 4th Amendment naturalized citizens have all the same rights as natural born so there is that.

 

[ll74]

I realize you think decrying "both sides arguments" is a stroke of genius - but what it really does is display how childishly you believe in your beloved Democrats. When you genuinely believe that all of the bad resides with one group of sociopaths... and only good is demonstrated by the other... it makes you look ridiculous.

But don't be dismayed. You are immature and naive, but you're not alone.

There are many like you... on both sides.

Both sidesism is that both suck equally and so neither views should be considered.

That's not the same as that one side is more preferred than the other on policy and governmental decisions.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Trump is NOT the end of democracy, but the response to Trump by various groups/individuals very well might be.

The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.

IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.

While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.

The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.

Interesting... and you're right.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I realize you think decrying "both sides arguments" is a stroke of genius - but what it really does is display how childishly you believe in your beloved Democrats. When you genuinely believe that all of the bad resides with one group of sociopaths... and only good is demonstrated by the other... it makes you look ridiculous.

But don't be dismayed. You are immature and naive, but you're not alone.

There are many like you... on both sides.

Nobody is saying that both sides don't have bad parts. They do . However they are not the same. If people can't tell the parties apart based on both the rhetoric and again on how they govern. I don't remember a government shut down or even a serious threat of one under Bush or Trump. Between Obama and Biden we've had three or four because the Democrats care that things get done and won't grind things to a halt JUST to harm the other team.

While there are obvious exceptions the Dems at least in modern times are far less likely to support any given war. The Left openly supporting destroying a country or whatever the hell you want to call Palestine. You would never hear a Lefty suggesting we essentially declare war on Mexico. I mean sure they said "The Cartels" but if the reverse happened do you think anybody would just say "Well they bombed an apartment building that was known to have a drug cartel working out of it? Course not.

I could post more but the two parties are not equal and opposite especially after the TEA party formed.Much less once MAGA became a thing.

 

[icanhelp1]

The Left has no idea as to how the government is structured and those that do openly opine for some sort of top-down collective that enforces conformity of thought while promoting diversity of façade and truly believe in mob rule right up to the point where their mob doesn't have the ruler in its hand. They create Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots while selling the fear that the majority will freely elect a Hitler (in their currant parlance, 'a Trump').

Our Federal Republic was created to protect us from the mob mentality and eventual rise of the strong man but we lost a lot of that protection when the rabble-roused mob wrested the Senate away from the States and added its feather to their aluminum-foil dunce cap. We no longer have Senator Byrd's saucer that cools the coffee and if they ever get their way again, the Left will seek to do much the same to the judicial branch of government, i.e., "Democratize it."

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, "Democracy is a pernicious evil!" and it gets progressively more evil as it is scaled up, especially in a large polyglot nation such as ours, where the melting pot has been allowed to cool and congeal into disparate chunks of sour-tasting lumps of bitter taste in your mouth.

We’re losing our melting pot status and becoming a toss salad.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

As far as states setting their own rules .... that hasn't gone well ....

​

Individual states did not introduce significant relevant legislation until the 2008 election of Barack Obama, when a controversy known as the birther movement was promoted by various conspiracy theorists. The "birthers" asserted during the 2008 presidential election campaign that Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, as mandated by the Constitution, and thus was ineligible to be President of the United States, prompting several state legislatures to consider legislation aimed at requiring future presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship by birth before being granted ballot access in their state. None of these efforts led to the passage of currently active laws. ​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

Do you REALLY want a ballot with hundreds if not thousands of names on it?

 

[icanhelp1]

As unfettered illegal migration is allowed to grow unchecked the process of assimilation will cease to exist.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Or...you know, your party could try not putting unqualified criminals up for positions of power

... and your party not put up thoroughly corrupted Alzheimer's patients up for positions of power.

 

[icanhelp1]

Do you REALLY want a ballot with hundreds if not thousands of names on it?

Why have political parties? How does the electoral college work with dozens of candidates, or does each candidate become a party unto itself. How does it sort itself out.

 

[icanhelp1]

... and your party not put up thoroughly corrupted Alzheimer's patients up for positions of power.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We’re losing our melting pot status and becoming a toss salad.

We've always been a toss salad well that's not true but closer than that melting pot nonsense we were taught as kids. It was so bad for so fucking long and still really is that we have places like Little Tokyo, China Town yadda yadda in every major city. When you look at (mostly the East Coast) even the Europeans have enough separation that you can kinda where you are by what kinds of foods are being served all over the place. For purposes of this pizza is not Italian at least not in the US. We've changed it so much that its almost something that needs its own name.

We try for sure and somethings have merged of course. Everybody has at least eaten a taco. Most people have had if not true Itallian food at least Americanized foods. We've had Chinese. Maybe sushi (not me) but that sort of thing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why have political parties? How does the electoral college work with dozens of candidates, or does each candidate become a party unto itself. How does it sort itself out.

Because way the Constittuion was written parties more specifically two parties was inevitable. You can't say the President is picked by having 50%+1 and expect people to draw lines in the sand and form alliances. Now some would argue the Founders really always intended it to be some combination of the Electors kinda taking the voters as advisors or they always wanted the house to pick. I don't believe either but their on insane ideas.

 

[jaF0]

This at least appears to be a fairly impartial and well-reasoned explanation:

"Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons. "​

https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I realize you think decrying "both sides arguments" is a stroke of genius - but what it really does is display how childishly you believe in your beloved Democrats. When you genuinely believe that all of the bad resides with one group of sociopaths... and only good is demonstrated by the other... it makes you look ridiculous.

But don't be dismayed. You are immature and naive, but you're not alone.

There are many like you... on both sides.

There are bad Democrats, but I can’t think of a single good Republican.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh look, I am being educated by the guy who doesn't know the definition of republic and democracy.

Consider me schooled.

Of course they taught us that the US is a republic. They also taught that us it is a democracy, and that those two things are orthogonal.

As I just pointed out, being a republic doesn't mean a whole lot. China is a republic, the UK is not. I know which government I would prefer to live under.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want, that doesn't change facts.

The US is a Republic. End of issue. Everything you believe which attempts to modify that FACT is in error. Again, end of issue.

As to China; "People's Republic" is an oxymoron with emphasis on moron if you believe it's actually a Republic instead of propaganda designed to fool simpleton asswipes like you.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

You can believe whatever the fuck you want, that doesn't change facts.

The US is a Republic. End of issue. Everything you believe which attempts to modify that FACT is in error. Again, end of issue.

As to China; "People's Republic" is an oxymoron with emphasis on moron if you believe it's actually a Republic instead of propaganda designed to fool simpleton asswipes like you.

We've got the classic Derpy tripling down on stupid. How many posts until meltdown?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

We've got the classic Derpy tripling down on stupid. How many posts until meltdown?

Oh he'll calm down after a tall glass of carbon based water.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You can believe whatever the fuck you want, that doesn't change facts.

The US is a Republic. End of issue. Everything you believe which attempts to modify that FACT is in error. Again, end of issue.

As to China; "People's Republic" is an oxymoron with emphasis on moron if you believe it's actually a Republic instead of propaganda designed to fool simpleton asswipes like you.

Since the way we practice a Republic a Republic is just a specific kind of Democrat. Your argument here boils down to "we're not fruits we're apples learn the difference jack ass!"

Also if we're NOT a democracy why do we constantly say things like "We're spreading democracy" or "we're defending democracy"? Seems odd to defend something that you believe the Founders specifically were against.

 

[YDB95]

I realize you think decrying "both sides arguments" is a stroke of genius - but what it really does is display how childishly you believe in your beloved Democrats. When you genuinely believe that all of the bad resides with one group of sociopaths... and only good is demonstrated by the other... it makes you look ridiculous.

Neither she nor anyone else said what you claim here...at least not about the Democrats. There certainly are people here who believe (or at least say they believe) Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right. I can honestly say I've never seen the other way around, at least not here.

There is no reason to believe Trump wasn't but I'd love to see that birth certificate. I know where babies are supposed to come out so if his mom had a C-Section and incredibly stupid argument could be made that he 'wasn't naturally born'.

Now you've got me wondering how many MAGAts could make any sense of "Macbeth". You could probably count 'em on your fingers.

We’re losing our melting pot status and becoming a toss salad.

Nonsense.

As unfettered illegal migration is allowed to grow unchecked the process of assimilation will cease to exist.

Xenophobes like yourself have been saying that at least since the Irish started coming over in the 19th century.

Why have political parties? How does the electoral college work with dozens of candidates, or does each candidate become a party unto itself. How does it sort itself out.

In case you really don't know: if no one candidate gets a simple majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the House, where each state delegation gets one vote regardless of how many representatives there are from the state. This is actually what the framers thought would happen most of the time.

 

[icanhelp1]

Neither she nor anyone else said what you claim here...at least not about the Democrats. There certainly are people here who believe (or at least say they believe) Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right. I can honestly say I've never seen the other way around, at least not here.



Now you've got me wondering how many MAGAts could make any sense of "Macbeth". You could probably count 'em on your fingers.




Nonsense.



Xenophobes like yourself have been saying that at least since the Irish started coming over in the 19th century.




In case you really don't know: if no one candidate gets a simple majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the House, where each state delegation gets one vote regardless of how many representatives there are from the state. This is actually what the framers thought would happen most of the time.

Yah that’s the answer, complicate the voting process even more.

 

[Chernosoth]

There are bad Democrats, but I can’t think of a single good Republican.

Good and bad are judgements that say nothing more than a personal judgement.

 

[YDB95]

Yah that’s the answer, complicate the voting process even more.

That certainly does seem to be what your side of the aisle wants.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good and bad are judgements that say nothing more than a personal judgement.

This is primarily false. Fire Fighter good, arsonist bad is an objective truth. War bad, Peace good. This is an objective truth. Now we know the Right doesn't care nor does the military industrial groups. But that's primarily because if you live in a country with no draft and your making money AND the country is on the other side of the world so there is zero chance of you or your kids nor their friends being in any danger. Oh and your property.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Good and bad are judgements that say nothing more than a personal judgement.