User Tag List

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 180

Thread: Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

  1. #91
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You mean it favors geography over people, which seems a bit silly to me, like doubling down on the Senate. And you don't get much sillier than the Senate.


    You want a united acres, not people then.


    You do realize that even within those red counties a lot of people (where there are a lot of people) are blue (either) right? For instance, my home county in Alabama is overwhelmingly conservative, with about 75% of it voting for the president in the last election. But that means there are 50k people who didn't don't show up on that map. And in many counties the color of them on that map can be a fairly thin margin.

    So color coded maps don't really/necessarily tell us that the less conservative and moderate sides of the nation are all found on the coast. It's just a version of the EC, with a winner take all misrepresentation.


    Hey, the Founders had a legitimate concern that people would simply turn out for their familiar, regional candidates before the advent of media that let people know a lot about other candidates from other regions, inviting a splintering of our then fragile and new union. That's no longer the case.

    You should visit New York City. The only mob mentality you'll find there is probably in Jersey.


    Every day, and I still say the EC is the second worse idea the Fathers ever had, right after, "Well, a little slavery couldn't hurt."


    Yeah, that was their game plan all along. You must have gotten on their "secret plan" mailing list by mistake. I got on it for contributing 4 bucks to Save the Whales. Insidious. But how you whiffed at the opportunity to work guns and Muslims into that response is anyone's guess.

    More seriously, you should be that (more serious). If you honestly think that about the blue then then the monied interests are getting their dollar's worth and it's an argument for diverting future wall funding to the education budget.
    And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas....
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  2. #92
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,108
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,465 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas....
    Good thing that isn't my position on the legislative branches and that I was, instead, speaking to how we should elect the head of the executive.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 6th, 2019),Rusha (July 5th, 2019)

  4. #93
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Good thing that isn't my position on the legislative branches and that I was, instead, speaking to how we should elect the head of the executive.
    Legislative branches?

    Well, that's done on the state level.....

    Just as the President should be voted on at the state level...

    If its your way, the 3 to 5 most populated states makes the rules for the entire nation...Screw that.
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  5. #94
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    This is Town to the smaller states:

    Vermont, screw you
    Montana, shut up.
    North Dakota, up yours....

    etc etc etc

    Even his home state gets the finger from Town.
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  6. #95
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Just shows he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about..
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  7. #96
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,108
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,465 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Legislative branches?

    Well, that's done on the state level.....
    Right. So imagine my eyebrows when you wrote, "And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas...."

    I mean, that having no real relation to what I was speaking to with the EC.

    Just as the President should be voted on at the state level...
    That's one assertion. Mostly the stuff of small states that want to have a disproportionate power. But the Senate gives them their voice. The president should reflect the people's voice, one man, one vote.

    If its your way, the 3 to 5 most populated states makes the rules for the entire nation...Screw that.
    Well, no. First, you have the Senate, which splits that power with the House, again. And then you have the Constitution and the Court.


    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    This is Town to the smaller states:
    Vermont, screw you
    Montana, shut up.
    North Dakota, up yours....
    etc etc etc
    Even his home state gets the finger from Town.
    Which alone should tell anyone with any sense that DR isn't getting my part right.


    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Just shows he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about..
    Well, you're in the ballpark, but this one appears to serve alcohol a bit too early.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 6th, 2019),Rusha (July 10th, 2019)

  9. #97
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post


    That's one assertion. Mostly the stuff of small states that want to have a disproportionate power.
    Disproportionate power?

    So states with 3 electors has more power than California... which has 55. Are you really using this as an argument?
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  10. #98
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,108
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,465 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Disproportionate power?
    Yes, which they already possess, really, having the Senate and with it half the power of the legislative branch on the strength of...land, at the federal level and sovereignty within their borders subject to the Constitution. Don't get me wrong though, I can see the reason in the Senate, in their having that sort of power, to protect, say, the rural interest of the heartland and not have, as per your advance, New York deciding for Iowa. That sort of thing.

    So states with 3 electors has more power than California.
    You're crossing streams, though are you suggesting the EC doesn't favor the states? Because that appears to be the single reason the pro side raises about it.

    My argument against the EC is that as the president is the representative of the people he should be elected by them. Otherwise you can have (and we've had) a minority in this country running roughshod over the majority, which is about as antithetical to a nation that believes in equality in right and before the law as you can have and still retain the semblance of a democracy.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 6th, 2019),Rusha (July 10th, 2019)

  12. #99
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    217
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by bibleverse2 View Post
    The electoral college allows the states to retain some sovereignty. For it is the United States, not the United Coastal Mobs.

    Also, look at a County map of the U.S., colored either Red or Blue according to the majority of "we" voters. You will be shocked at how few counties are Blue. The map is overwhelmingly, solid, Red.

    And it is the wonderful U.S. Constitution itself which assures that the immoral Coastal elites and their city mobs cannot dictate to the moral, red and central expanse.

    Thank God.

    The leftists don't want only to get rid the of U.S. Constitution's electoral college, but also its Bill of Rights (esp. its freedom of religion and speech), so that they can ruthlessly persecute Biblical Christians in the name of a Satanic, "political correctness".

    May God help us.
    This is why the founding fathers put in the electoral college to basically keep the densely packed sections such as the cities from overwhelming and imposing their will on the rest of the country.

  13. #100
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,108
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,465 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobie View Post
    This is why the founding fathers put in the electoral college to basically keep the densely packed sections such as the cities from overwhelming and imposing their will on the rest of the country.
    No, it isn't. It was to keep regionalism from destroying the necessary unity of a new nation. There weren't that many cosmopolitan areas then and a lot of people were spread out across a great divide, with no instantaneous media to give us a feel for the candidates who weren't from our neck of the woods.

    That's no longer the case. And the founding fathers didn't trust the unlanded non-gentry. We had no free public education in those days. They feared an easily manipulated public.

    Lastly, the Constitutional establishment did not create the winner take all effect we see in states today, so the unusual split we saw in the last election, where the popular and electoral votes differed and the lesser of the former won the job wasn't a thing built into the process. It was added in later.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 7th, 2019),Rusha (July 10th, 2019)

  15. #101
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, it isn't. It was to keep regionalism from destroying the necessary unity of a new nation. There weren't that many cosmopolitan areas then and a lot of people were spread out across a great divide, with no instantaneous media to give us a feel for the candidates who weren't from our neck of the woods.

    That's no longer the case. And the founding fathers didn't trust the unlanded non-gentry. We had no free public education in those days. They feared an easily manipulated public.

    Lastly, the Constitutional establishment did not create the winner take all effect we see in states today, so the unusual split we saw in the last election, where the popular and electoral votes differed and the lesser of the former won the job wasn't a thing built into the process. It was added in later.
    Where did you learn that jibberish from, college?
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  16. #102
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,990
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,323 Times in 2,109 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623764
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, it isn't. It was to keep regionalism from destroying the necessary unity of a new nation. There weren't that many cosmopolitan areas then and a lot of people were spread out across a great divide, with no instantaneous media to give us a feel for the candidates who weren't from our neck of the woods.
    Regionalism? The nation as you like to say wasn't a nation, say France or Germany. The United States was created by 13 individual nations forming a confederacy of nations. The 13 nations came together to form a Republic....not a democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That's no longer the case. And the founding fathers didn't trust the unlanded non-gentry. They feared an easily manipulated public.
    Wow! And this passed off as fact...Amazing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And we had no free public education in those days
    Thank God!
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  17. #103
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,108
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,465 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Where did you learn that jibberish from, college?
    Well, it wasn't from whoever didn't teach you how to argue.

    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Regionalism? The nation as you like to say wasn't a nation, say France or Germany. The United States was created by 13 individual nations forming a confederacy of nations. The 13 nations came together to form a Republic....not a democracy.
    A republic is a nation and I set out the why of that concern, that men would vote for the person who lived among them, be it in state or region, depending on nomination. Also we are a form of democracy. I'd talk to you more about it but not while you're idea of discourse is this sort of nonsense.

    Here's a snippet from and a link to an interesting article on the republic/democracy consideration in the Washington Post, by Eugene Volokh. I enclose his credentials in spoiler tags:

    Spoiler
    Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, a class on Persuasion, and an Intensive Editing Workshop at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2016), as well as over 75 law review articles. Volokh is also an Academic Affiliate for the Mayer Brown LLP law firm, and has argued 20 appellate case in state and federal courts throughout the country, almost all related to the First Amendment.



    "I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

    The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

    And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on." LINK

    Wow! And this passed off as fact...Amazing.
    And that's supposed to be a rebuttal? Even more amazing. To give you much more effort than you make here (by which I mean any) yes. Our founders struggled over the point. In fact, prior to our Republic, land ownership was a broadly accepted requirement.

    Said James Madison of the struggle of some on the point of suffrage: "The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property owners and the rights of person may be oppressed...Extend it to all and the rights of property owners...may be overruled by a majority without property." LINK

    In fact, Mass. actually restricted the vote to those landowners in their own Constitution.

    Said Ben Franklin on the point of suffrage (and at the end it dovetails nicely into my argument against land weighting the voting power of individuals): "
    Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"
    Last edited by Town Heretic; July 8th, 2019 at 04:29 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Rusha (July 10th, 2019)

  19. #104
    Journeyman Hobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    217
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    That would be awesome.



    No it won't be the end of our Constitutional Republic as we know it. It'll just be four years of a better presidency than the one we're being inflicted with right now.
    In Cuba, everyone thought that anything would be better than Batista, and then Castro took over. All I can say is don't jump out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire.

  20. #105
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    288
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Blog Entries
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2868
    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    I don't see any coastal mobs.
    You didn't see, for example, the recent, "Pride" parades?

    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    How moral was it that someone shot up a church in Texas killing 26 people and wounding 20 more?
    Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?

    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    How moral was it that three Trump-supporting militia members in Kansas were recently convicted for planning to blow up a mosque and kill everyone, including children?
    Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?

    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    How moral is it that Kentucky has the highest child abuse rate in the country?
    Who said that child abuse is moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?

    Also, what is the worst child abuse is the murder of children in abortion, which the coastal mobs clamor for and practice endlessly.

    Quote Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
    I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.
    The idea is that none of the immoral examples you referenced above have any support from the GOP. Those crimes of murder and abuse are not supported by GOP policies in any way.

    But the Dems, as a matter of policy, support the murderous practice of abortion, and the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

    That is the difference between Red morality and Blue immorality.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us