None of us want an unhindered democracy. I think we are all pretty happy with the idea of a representative democracy. But what many people don't understand about the Electoral College is that it was never intended to give small populations an unfair advantage over larger populations. The one and ONLY intention behind the Electoral College is to provide surrogate voters in place of politicians. The Constitution states very clearly that Congress elects the president not the people. But that introduced the possibility of collusion between politicians and candidates, so... the Electoral College was created in which every congressional district was provided with one surrogate voter.

The problem arose after the 1913 Census when it was decided that congressional seats would remain at 435 despite the growing population. After that point any region where populations boomed the ratio of representatives to citizens declined. This gradually led to what we have today where a vote cast in Wyoming is worth 5 votes in California... In other words there are five times as many voters sharing a congressional district (or one electoral vote) in California than there is in Wyoming.

So, where I hear some of my fellow liberals complaining about the Electoral College, the actual cause of the problem is the evolved lack of parity in the congressional districts not some intended design.

I also find your conclusion to be very self-serving. If you're part of a smaller population that feels threatened by larger populations, unfair representation is not a just solution. A better solution is to try and remove issues of conflict from the federal system and try to make them state or local issues.

The hard truth of all this is that the United States is too damned big. Governments simply can't represent the needs of super-large populations. Look at China, they suck. Look at India and Indonesia, they suck too. Look at Russia they suck too. I hear this all the time from the right who are always pointing out that socialist democracies work better in smaller countries like Sweden and Switzerland. Well, of course they do. the same can be said of ANY democratic system.

But the reason why the U.S. remains at 350+ million and growing is because empires operate differently. Empires like to apply their rules to as many people as possible and that includes the commercial empires that we never seem to consider. "Big Oil" and "Big Pharma" are two examples of commercial empires that benefit from the size of the population that one government can control. Not just in terms of market regulation but also in terms (at least for Big Oil) of how much military might can be extracted from the tax base.

For us "little people" there really is no advantage to remaining such a large nation. I advocate the break up of the U.S.A into sovereign states. There's no reason why all those fly-over red states couldn't do better of they united into a sovereign nation of their own while states like California stand on their own. It's high time, for us all to go our separate ways.

OK, fine... so he won most of the states. But states don't have an equal share of people, so stop trying to make this about people, when it's not.

I'll try to make this simple... Say you have three states, one with 10 people, one with 5 people and one with 500 people. If a candidate wins the first two states it means he won most of the states, right but since those states only have 15 people versus the 500 in the other state he CAN'T say most of the people voted for him.

That law states that the popular vote, which is the true reflection of the people's will, doesn't count. So you CAN say that Trump won according to the rules, but that doesn't mean "We The People" have been represented fairly.

Hey, I was just posting what the op-ed said. "Grownups" was his words, not mine, though I must admit I find the description applicable considering that fact that Trump and his supposed allies are inexperienced, reckless and yes, childish.

YOU might agree with what Trump is doing but there is no denying that his tweets confirm a childlike self-obsession. And from my perspective I can't think of anything he's done that isn't a ticket for eventual disaster.

You're penchant for name calling reflects a similar immaturity.


Why do you say things that so easy to disqualify? The official count says that most Americans that voted, voted for Clinton, not Trump. You can say that Trump won the election by virtue of the Electoral College, but to say most Americans voted for him is obviously incorrect. Not only that but MOST Americans didn't even vote. Trump got votes from roughly 23% of the American people... That's not most.

You can also look at the latest polls... None of them can be taken as gospel, but they do give us frequent estimates and you can get a rough gauge if you consider polls from all sides. Right now, 53% disapprove of Trump while only 40% approve.

Have a look at this analysis that considers all the major polls, liberal AND conservative. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ I thought it was pretty interesting that they ran the numbers for all polled Americans vs just the adults, where approval dropped and disapproval increased.

In any case, you can *say* whatever floats your boat but the evidence available to us clearly states that those supporting Trump are the ones *trying* to thwart the will of most Americans.

They're very simple concepts byron... and they are NOT mutually exclusive. The mutually exclusive concepts are Democracy vs Tyranny because people either have a voice or they don't and Republic vs Monarchy because you either have a royal family or you don't.

Otherwise, you can mix and match... You can have a democratic republic (U.S.), a tyrannical republic (China), a democratic monarchy (U.K.) or a tyrannical monarchy (Saudi Arabia)

OK... so what is a democracy when it DOES have a solid and sanctified constitution? Article II of the U.S. Constitution prescribes a body of elected representatives... Most educated people call that a representative democracy. But I'm curious about what YOIU call it, since you are calling direct democracy "true" democracy. So is our system a "fake" democracy?


Ya know... That's a terrible thing to say. Telling people you don't even know that they hate God really underlies your bitterness. As for the governing principles, there is no specific reference to God and the First Amendment insures that our republic remain secular, which is why everyone in America can enjoy a relationship with God in the manner in which they feel is appropriate. Atheists have their own issues with the existence of God but those are isolated, personal and in no way any part of the political conflict between left and right.

There *is* a reference to inalienable rights, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence but it's up to the individual how to qualify that. Some people insists that "inalienable" means God-given, other's prefer to think of it as a basic human right. The only thing the left is resistant to is how people like you try to force your religion into politics.

The U.S.A is secular. Deal with it.

Oops, found this one.

https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2018/9/17/t1-374979-bdamage.jpg

Sometimes people need to get a hold of themselves. ;)

Denial has that effect. ;)


*sigh* So this post is ALL about me. So, ad hominem or are you really that obsessed with me? (It's kinda creepy.) Why don't you stick to the topic?

1) The American Revolution was followed by the French Revolution and then the Russian Revolution, so your opening line (The American Revolution was the revolution to end all revolutions) is already a misnomer.
2) You wrote: "where we citizens owned our government and were not state chattel" But at the time of this nation's founding, "citizens" was a reference to white male landowners and many of them owned chattel slaves.
3) You wrote: There is no need for violence, which includes your civil disobedience By definition, civil disobedience is not violent. Once disobedience becomes violent, the "civil" part goes away.

And finally: 4) The Bill of Rights, being a part of the Constitution, only applies to the government. It is tremendously ignorant to think it guarantees our rights in the private sector. The root of the struggle between the left and right in America today is balanced on this issue. The right is trying to privatize public interests which effectively removes the power of the Constitution from American lives. A perfect example is the recent Supreme Court ruling on arbitration agreements, which is something I posted about when it happened and there wasn't a single conservative on this site that understood it. That's because you folks are all being fooled by the plutocracy which has found great benefits to leaning on the most illiterate sector of the American population and it's in their best interest that you NOT understand what they are doing. They know they can rely on agitating your emotions to override any sense of intelligence.


I don't know what you are referring to.


I have a job making six figures. I doubt there is anything in www.apprenticeships.gov that could come close to matching that.


D'Souza is a felon with a political stick up his ass and poor writing skills.

I'm already familiar enough with Alinsky's "affiliation" with Al Capone to know it was a matter of study, not alliance.

Counter... You're the one getting suckered by propaganda which doesn't say much for you because the right-wing propaganda you are regurgitating doesn't even make sense. The Nazis and Communists hated each other with a passion. Part of the reason why the Nazis persecuted Jews was because of the German Jewish involvement with Russian Communists during WW1. Meanwhile in the U.S., industrialists like Rockefeller and Ford, who already expressed their distaste for Communism were negotiating business deals with the Nazis.

I'm not sure exactly what old marine meant when he said Congress fought tooth and nail to keep FDR in the dark but I know that Congress was resistant to FDR's suggestion that we join Britain in the war against Germany's obvious aggressions.


The Russian Federation of Republics is probably the last place you will find the truth. The KGB have been masters of deceit and Putin is a graduate. The Federation itself is run by oligarchs who are taking the art of deception to a new level.

I suggest you read from the horse mouth instead of from processed propaganda streams. For instance, Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler. It's kind of long and mostly boring but one thing stands out very clearly... Hitler's passionate distaste for communism.


You're a prime example.

LOL, That would not be surprising.

Just for reference, a Republic is simply an alternative to a monarchy. It's amazing how many people think it's an alternative to democracy. That seems to be a fallacy that only recently started to propagate across the Internet so I'm assuming it's the result of some conservative talking head taking advantage of the ignorance out there again.

You bring up a good point. Bernie is getting a lot more traction on his universal health suggestions now than he ever did when the ACA was a competing option. Obama himself said the ACA was only a starting point as was so much of what he initiated. The Trump Bump could very well be an inadvertent catalyst for promoting these ideas.

If you and millions of people take offense to what I said it's because you and millions of other people are offended by the truth.


That's fine. I don't care how small you think I am. I'm not Mr. Trumplethinskin. I say what I think and you are welcome to debate any of the points I've made... Or you can just try to insult me but keep in mind, that will most likely feed my arrogance, so if you can't counter my arguments you should probably just ignore them.

If everyone is against you that doesn't mean you're bucking the system. Especially, if everyone is ignoring your demands and preparing to impeach you.


To say the deep state is trying to rid itself of true freedom shows that you're stretching. Think about it... why would ANYONE try to rid themselves of freedom?


Well, I'm glad you can get so much out of nothing.

You called my posts "blather". I'm not actually insulted, but your choice of words was obviously meant to be insulting.


I insult you and your kind all the time. At least I'm man enough to admit it. But the difference is I don't depend on insults to make my case.


In that same sentence I also said I am healthy, straight, white and that I have money in the bank and marketable skills. You don't see the pattern? The fact that my whole point is that I don't have as much to worry about as others doesn't help? Do I really need to spell it out for you? the LGBT community has more to worry about than I do personally. None of Trump's aggressions are aimed at me directly. That was my point. If your response was to fixate on my sexual orientation then you have bigger problems than I do.


Actually, a lot like democratic socialism. In fact democratic socialism is a form of representative democracy. Maybe you should actually learn what these things are before making such a fool of yourself.


I'm not trying to fool anyone but I do get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside when I craft an awesome response :)


"angry, hateful, racist, bigoted lib/commies" sounds more like fuming than laughing.


Where do you see me defending the agenda of communists? Where you do you see me defending the agenda of racists or bigots?

BTW, your memes are all BS. Anyone can take pictures and put senseless words to them. I suggest you check with more reliable sources like dictionaries, encyclopedias and books where the author's reputation depends on their accuracy.

Or just go to school. It's never too late ;)