Just wanted to mention. I would prefer that well thought out post without all the name calling. Reality alone shuts down the left's agruments, without embellishment.
While I appreciate you sentiment, unlike the admonishment of St. Paul, I will not suffer fools gladly.
I will call them what they are because it ceases to be "name calling" when it is an accurate description.
Furthermore, the left doesn't recognize reality.
If they did we wouldn't be constantly bombarded with claims about Russia, #Resist, impeachment, dissolution of the electoral college or a host of their other fantasies.
The left lives in a fantasy world of emotional decision making and a view of the world around them warped by childish perception.
His posting history here is self-evident that Treedog isn't going to change his views because of anything we say or how we comport ourselves.
Only maturity and life experience might do that, assuming that he has the ability to objectively process information and think as an adult.
Until then, there is a political and cultural war waging in this country, and "playing nice" with the leftists has never proved to be an effective tactic.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-17-2017).]
First, at no point did I say the electoral votes should be redistributed, I am saying they should be abolished all together.
The problem with these arguments, is that the system doesn't work as they claim it does.
I completely agree that the house of reps and the senate should both exist, but that does not mean the president should be elected by the electoral college. This system does not force the president to care about rural states, simply because we have a first past the post system and the spoiler effect. Now if we had instant runoff voting, things would be a little different.
Currently, just four states receive 57% of the attention and 55% of the money spent by presidential candidates(Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Those four states run the country, simply because of the electoral college.
The states do NOT elect the president The popular vote does NOT elect the president It doesn't protect the small states
So what is the electoral college actually doing?
Here is a good link to a visual argument on youtube(his next video in the series addresses even more arguments).
Also, just because it was written 200+ years ago in the constitution doesn't mean it is the absolute best logic that still applies today. The founders also included an ability to change the Constitution, it is a living document, not one set in stone.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 10-17-2017).]
First, at no point did I say the electoral votes should be redistributed, I am saying they should be abolished all together.
Thank God and the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution that is NEVER going to happen except in your deluded fantasy.
REALITY:
Just as with the wisdom of the electoral college system, more populous states CANNOT amend the United States Constitution on their own.
A constitutional amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
There is no way in hell that Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Rhode Island or ANY state with fewer than 12 electoral votes is EVER going to cede perpetual control of this nation to the populations of Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Chicago.
Our electoral system was specifically set up to prevent something like that.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog:
Also, just because it was written 200+ years ago in the constitution doesn't mean it is the absolute best logic that still applies today.
YES, the logic still applies and always will kid. Over 200 years ago the framers of the Constitution knew full well there were, and would always be, totalitarians and fools like YOU.
Do yourself a favor sonny and get yourself a high school text on basic American civics, (if they even exist anymore), and learn something.
If I thought that you were even mildly ambitious I would also suggest reading the Federalist Papers so that you might understand WHY the founders wrote the Constitution as they did....but I know that you wouldn't bother because they're just a bunch of old, dead, white guys...
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-18-2017).]
There is no way in hell that Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Rhode Island or ANY state with fewer than 12 electoral votes is EVER going to cede perpetual control of this nation to the populations of Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Chicago.
Yes, four cities that are less than 4% of our country's population. I am sure they will run everything, right? Its not like candidates already spend more than half their time in just a few states, that would mean the current system isn't working either. Or did you just ignore the entire point I made?
If I thought that you were even mildly ambitious I would also suggest reading the Federalist Papers so that you might understand WHY the founders wrote the Constitution as they did....but I know that you wouldn't bother because they're just a bunch of old, dead, white guys...
Or even The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke, since his philosophy heavily influenced the framers. That work there comes very close to what our Government became. There are some branch name changes and some different powers of each branch changed to other branches. On the whole though it is very close to what we have today in our Constitution. It just has the explanation of the philosophical reasoning behind why governments are formed and why Locke thought the system he described would insure the highest amount of civil liberty for those subject to it's governance.
Yes, four cities that are less than 4% of our country's population. I am sure they will run everything, right? Its not like candidates already spend more than half their time in just a few states, that would mean the current system isn't working either. Or did you just ignore the entire point I made?
And yet, this process wasn’t a problem when Obama was elected using the same procedures. Hmmmm
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
I sincerely hope that life is never discovered on another planet because, sure as hell Progressives and Socialists will want to send them money.
Or even The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke, since his philosophy heavily influenced the framers. That work there comes very close to what our Government became. There are some branch name changes and some different powers of each branch changed to other branches. On the whole though it is very close to what we have today in our Constitution. It just has the explanation of the philosophical reasoning behind why governments are formed and why Locke thought the system he described would insure the highest amount of civil liberty for those subject to it's governance.
What states the president visits while running is irrelevant, I don't see how the person running coming to talk in my state would influence me voting for them at all.
LOL the totalitarian answer is probably to forcibly move people from the dense populated areas to less populated areas.
If this nut had his way within a few years we would have wars for states leaving the union.
Sour grapes, poor losers, anger and violence along with some kind of very disturbing disconnect is what the left is demonstrating to the world. They are accusing Trump of everything the left is in fact guilty of.
Seems these days I am the a-hole for even mentioning the obvious short comings in any given situation. It's like they are trying to frame the way you are aloud to point out they are wrong.... otherwise...... you are wrong simply for not being as nice to them as they feel they somehow deserve and the tantrum ensues. No surprise after raising a country full of weeny pajama boys.
I am looking forward to the fits that these quacks or going to have when the indictments finally start being handed out. Monkey like poo flinging won't delay the inevitable forever. Though Soros and is 18 billion donation to the loony left organization will slow things down. Think of all the tax his estate will not have to pay when he finally does the world a service and dies.
Originally posted by Red88FF: Sour grapes, poor losers, anger and violence along with some kind of very disturbing disconnect is what the left is demonstrating to the world. They are accusing Trump of everything the left is in fact guilty of.
Seems these days I am the a-hole for even mentioning the obvious short comings in any given situation. It's like they are trying to frame the way you are aloud to point out they are wrong.... otherwise...... you are wrong simply for not being as nice to them as they feel they somehow deserve and the tantrum ensues. No surprise after raising a country full of weeny pajama boys.
I am looking forward to the fits that these quacks or going to have when the indictments finally start being handed out. Monkey like poo flinging won't delay the inevitable forever. Though Soros and is 18 billion donation to the loony left organization will slow things down. Think of all the tax his estate will not have to pay when he finally does the world a service and dies.
What you are describing is Narcisstic projection. A good example is how the russian collusion turned out to be Hillary selling uranium to the Russians.
