Posts for: The Critical Critic
Aug 31, 2019 19:07:24 #
(Main)
dongreen76 wrote:
Good afternoon : So we are back to the debate of whether or not we are a democracy or what ever.
Not exactly, Don. Because there really isn’t a debate to be had.
Quote:
I have done the research as per stated above"so we are back.... and in doing this research I have read the text of the debates of the founding fathers/framers to determine which political philosophies they should use that should be our laws of governing rule.It was extensive.There were many pros and cons over which type of government we should have.They decided in principle on a democracy;denominative to the democracy; there was inserted a Republic.
I’m not denying that there was much debate about the form of government we would have. The conclusion of your extensive research seems to be in direct conflict with Article IV Section IV of the US Constitution, as well as our charters of freedom, due to the fact that the word democracy, isn’t in any of them. I’m very interested in which sources you scoured that led to your conclusion. Perhaps you could list a few, if you can find the time?
Quote:
Keeping in mind they had very little faith in the proletariats ability to govern it self with the wisdom needed to reach the goal of establishing and birthing a new nation and sustain it.The democracy is are foundation in which this country stands.Democracy is prerequisite to the concept of freedom.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Democracy is the antithesis of freedom. Democracy allows for the disenfranchisement of the minority. A Republic respects the rights of the minority, right down to the individual, freedom of the individual.
Quote:
Democracy is merely the Idea of the people having a say so in how or what they will be governed by as oppose to any type of totaltarian rule -even though we have a republic,it is still denominative to an intrinsic Democracy.
Actually it doesn’t. A democracy is defined as mob rule, tyrannical/totalitarian by its very nature. For instance: if a democracy consisted of 100 people, and 51 (51%) of them were in favor of one thing, but the other 49 were not, the 49 have no recourse for appeal, they are stuck with what the 51 want, or don’t want for that matter. Not so in a Republic. A couple of examples of what I mean; ask yourself how many states are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. And, how much of the Congress is needed to override a p**********l veto. There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.
Quote:
This comes about due to true
Democratic e******ns that takes place on
the domestic local levels -these feed and
Percipatates the Republic.
Democratic e******ns that takes place on
the domestic local levels -these feed and
Percipatates the Republic.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. But you seem to be separating state e******ns from federal e******ns, and that they are somehow a Democratic process as opposed to a Republican process. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify your statement for me.
Quote:
Lastly,in another post discussing whether or not we were a Democracy or a Republic,You should keep in mind that there does not exist any true Democracy's(ies) nor does there exist any true states of C*******m, we are more or less the closes thing to it.
This much is mostly accurate. And the reason is that both of those forms of government are proven failures historically speaking. And the Framers (to include most of the colonists at the time) of our constitution knew this much before they even began the framing debates.
Enjoy your evening, Don. I’ll leave you with a quote:
“It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton, Speech to Congress, June 21, 1788
Aug 31, 2019 16:40:51 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
You raised some fair points. I will answer them....just keep in mind I never claimed to be a constitutional scholar, an ordinary joe, if you will.
Same here my friend.
Quote:
Let's start with the big one: that you disagree that a convention of the states is a similar Constitutional animal as the movement by some states to form a national popular v**e compact. I am in no position to argue that. I cannot cite chapter and verse of the various legal arguments that underpin what is surely a very complex issue. My layman's knowledge tells me you are technically correct.
By my statement I just meant, constitutionally, there are no provisions for compacts between states. However, provisions are made for a convention of states, in Article V, which I suppose could be used to amend the constitution and change p**********l e******n procedure. I just don’t see 75% of states getting on board with that.
Quote:
I also did not mean to slight the lower courts, nor their roles. I just assumed that both sides will fight to the bitter end with appeal after appeal. That's how I saw it coming to the Supremes.
Oh I didn’t mean to imply that you were slighting them, it was more me doing the slighting lol.
Quote:
The conflict I saw going to the high court was this: If in 2020 the President is re-elected with a minority of the popular v**e, then the movement for a national popular v**e compact will gain strength and more states will pass laws to join if the 270 trigger is hit.
You’re most likely correct there would be quite a push. But I think the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment, would bring that notion to a full stop. But, like you said, sometimes reality can be stranger than fiction.
Quote:
The conflict would involve a state's right to choose it's e*****rs the way they see fit, as stated in the Constitution, or is that compact a violation of the Constitution, as you cited. Since it is a future hypothetical, I'm just playing around with ideas. I do know that what is considered Constitutional changes over time, and the variables are endless.
Your last part here is a real hang up for me. If you’re interested, check out my last topic about the SC, it depicts my position perfectly.
Quote:
What if the break-up the country were involved in such a ruling....open r*******n, etc.
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility. We’re quite fractured even now. I enjoy when you throw out ideas, they make me think, and make for good dialogue.
Quote:
So I respect your argument and agree with your analysis. But who knows what's coming down the road and reality is often stranger than fiction. Hope this was somewhat cogent. As usual, it's a pleasure...
Quite cogent, sir. The respect and pleasure is mutual, as always. Thank you.
Aug 31, 2019 14:15:35 #
(Main)
booboo wrote:
That is exactly what those cry babies would do! The only reason they object to the EC is because Hillary lost the e******n because of it. Had she won, that genius of geniuses, AOC, wouldn't even be talking about this. This is a typical L*****t tactic - when they lose, they then want to change the rules until they win! Poor losers (stating the obvious I guess...).
That does seem to be the case...
Funny, when Obama won (twice) because of the EC, not a single complaint made.
(Welcome to OPP, booboo)
Aug 31, 2019 13:42:26 #
(Main)
woodguru wrote:
Besides dems rolling out millions of new v**ers, a... (show quote)
Please attempt to make that point. Bear in mind, constitutional core values are based in (con)federalism, and republicanism.
Aug 31, 2019 13:12:13 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
I get your point. The various states cannot make a 'compact' without Congressional approval. That point, it seems to me, might conflict with the right of states in choosing their own e*****rs.
Interesting, how so? The right of states to select their e*****rs is an internal state decision, not involving any other state.
Quote:
If we get to the point where a compact of states throws their e*****rs in with the winner of the popular v**e, we may have a SCOTUS case on our hands.
That would show the lower courts in a bad light. The Article, section, and clause I cited, further goes on to say that if such a compact is made to further political power, that too would also be in violation of the constitution.
Quote:
Until then, I see such a proposed compact in the same light as the call by some conservatives for a convention of the states.
I’m forced to disagree with you here my friend. As the former is unconstitutional, while the latter process is entirely constitutional. In fact, it could be used to amend the constitution in order to change the e******n process for president, but I honestly can’t see 3/4 of the states agreeing to that. A funny note, the states that have entered this so called compact haven’t v**ed for a Republican in at least the last three p**********l e******ns.
Quote:
I wouldn't describe a national popular v**e as disastrous. Most of the times the e*******l college and popular v**e align. Now, I wouldn't mess with the Constitution because I think that it is a genius move to have a popular v**e loser be allowed to govern. And I do mean genius. The main question for me is: does that person govern wisely?
I agree, it is genius. To your question: that’s a big one for me as well. The provisions for qualification for President and Vice President are very simple. Which leaves the vetting process pretty much up to the people. How do we know how someone will govern, when they have no governing history. Contestants can run on one platform, making campaign promises, but once elected, completely change their stance(s). That was an excellent question, sir. (Always making me think)
Aug 31, 2019 07:14:03 #
(Main)
dongreen76 wrote:
Well, Proud Incurry- the e*****rial college has sh... (show quote)
Good morning, Don. Just in case you didn’t know, the USA is NOT a democracy, never was, and by the grace of God, never will be. The e*******l college was chosen by the Farmers to prevent democracy. You should research exactly what the Framers thought about democracies. Democracy is not our foundation, and certainly doesn’t define us.
Aug 30, 2019 22:17:15 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
I think the e*******l college was a wise decision ... (show quote)
I can appreciate most all of that. My only point of contention would be the very last part. I’m of the position that an argument can be made such a compact is unconstitutional, by way of it being in violation of at least Article I Section 10 Clause 3. A national popular v**e would be disastrous. If it were a wise idea surely the combined genius of the Framers would have provided for it.
Aug 30, 2019 20:31:37 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
OK....gotcha.
Just curious. I don’t remember if we ever discussed the EC.. are you a fan, or no?
Aug 30, 2019 19:46:58 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
I'd be interested in the edit. As you know, I do enjoy exchanging ideas with you.
I do... and likewise.
I did, it’s now part of my original response to you... just about which part I thought Magoo hit the nail.
Aug 30, 2019 19:35:14 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
I appreciate that and thanks for your good wishes.
Always
Dang you’re fast, lol. Thought I could squeeze in a quick edit.
Aug 30, 2019 19:30:00 #
(Main)
working class stiff wrote:
I don't think calling the v**ers of 2 of the largest states morons is hitting the nail on the head. It's more like hitting your thumb, especially when citing e pluribus unum. I have no interest in uniting with folks who think like that. 
Hope you're doing well.
Hope you're doing well.
Fair enough my friend. Though he is absolutely correct in regards to the E Pluribus Unum... it has nothing to do with the people, that’s where he hits the nail on the head.
Doing ok here... more importantly, I hope you’re doing well.
Aug 30, 2019 17:10:54 #
(Main)
Sonny Magoo wrote:
From many, One. E Pluribus Unum.
The United States are, not is.
Each state is sovereign.
The e*******l college provides protection from morons and their brainwashed followers in states like California and New York, to folks who raise pigs in Iowa.
The United States are, not is.
Each state is sovereign.
The e*******l college provides protection from morons and their brainwashed followers in states like California and New York, to folks who raise pigs in Iowa.
And that right there ladies and gentlemen, is how you hit the nail on the head!
Aug 30, 2019 12:39:12 #
(Main)
nygal wrote:
Wow. br br Americans are so r****ded today that t... (show quote)
Oh great... look everyone, just what OPP needs, another spam-artist.
Aug 30, 2019 09:16:01 #
(Main)
Ricktloml wrote:
Nothing like overreach, by the government, or the judiciary.
Aug 29, 2019 23:59:05 #
(Main)
EmilyD wrote:
I was born there. The Cape, Boston, Route 1, Marbl... (show quote)
All that, and you didn’t even mention the taxes lol. You’re right though. It’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Quote:
I wonder how Boston would deal with what's going on in San Francisco? They wouldn't allow it...yet. I doubt they allow buses of i*****l i*******ts to flow into any of their cities.
A major difference here though is the size. Boston isn’t a very big city, not as many people. I don’t know anything about the buses of i******s, but they have their fair share of homelessness and addiction. And yes, the occasional poop on the sidewalk. You’re probably aware of the area referred to as methadone mile. There are videos on YouTube. Though again, not nearly like San Francisco... (or other major cities)
Do you still have family there?