drbrumley
Well-known member
Where did you learn that jibberish from, college?
Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Where did you learn that jibberish from, college?
drbrumley
Well-known member
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.
Wow! And this passed off as fact...Amazing.
Thank God!
Well, it wasn't from whoever didn't teach you how to argue.
lain: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
"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
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:
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.
bibleverse2
New member
You didn't see, for example, the recent, "Pride" parades?
Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?
Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?
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.
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.
bibleverse2
New member
How would Harris be worse than Warren?
Also, how would either be better than Trump, or better than some other GOP nominee?
That is, what if something happens to Trump before the election, and the GOP has to replace him as nominee?
Does the GOP have anyone in the wings who can take on the Dem candidate? Or, does the GOP have all of its eggs in one basket?
Remarkably, the Dems currently have five different candidates who all can either beat or match Trump in one-on-one polls.
But who does the GOP have (besides Trump) who can overcome any of the Dem candidates?
For, imagine (God forbid) if something were to happen to Trump before the election. The GOP would then have to watch in horror as a hapless Pence is eaten alive by Harris the tigress, by Harris the predator.
Unless Christie is allowed somehow to step in as the GOP nominee. For he could swallow Harris whole.
Well, the sections of 'regionalism' were basically the greater number of people in the larger towns and cities, and we still have 'easily manipulated public', just look at the news cycle. And as for 'the winner take all effect' how far do you want to break down the vote, per region, counties, streets, or per 'household'. It is just as controversial to try to do that, so no matter what you choose, someone will not be happy, and the winner take all is the best way for states.
What you see as a problem now just wasn't a concern for our founders, because the population was much less concentrated and was overwhelmingly agrarian. Regionalism was about communication and the newly minted nature of our nation. In 1790 it's estimated that 1 in 20 Americans lived in a city. After the industrial revolution and by 1870 that number was 1 in 4, and by the 1920s it was half. By the 1960s it was 4 in 5.
So the modern concern some people have about concentrated populations and political pull is a relative new one and wasn't the reason for the EC.
Look at Maine and Nebraska. They don't have the winner take all approach to the EC. There, you have a proportionate take of the EC votes.
Right Divider
Body part
That is exactly wrong. It's the very reason for the EC in the first place.
Well, no. As I noted in my last, the population was overwhelmingly agrarian and found outside of cities. The urbanization of America was largely the result of the Industrial Revolution and didn't lead to a dominance of city populations greater than the outlying populations until well into the last century.
A number of issues made the EC make a good deal of sense, but not the concern that cities might have more power or a disproportionate power, that concentrations of population would run roughshod on the farmlands, because most people were in those farmlands, not in the cities.
Again, 1 person in 20 lived in the city when the Founders created the EC.
Today, it's 4 in 5, with the tipping point coming in the living memory of some people walking around today.
But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance. All I can say about Maine was it seemed a waste as the state would not be as important as a winner take all, as for Nebraska I would have to look at the breakdown of the votes and see how it came out.
Well, no. You're still thinking about it from our context. At the time the power wasn't in cities. Again today it's 4 in 5 people living in cities. Then it was 1 in 20. So 19 out of 20 people lived outside of the cities.
Cities were clearing houses and business/commerce hubs. Vital, but largely as helpmates for the work going on beyond their borders. That changes with the Industrial Revolution here, but the first industrial mill didn't even begin that trend until 1790.
Maine and Nebraska don't appear to think its the case. I don't either. You have to remember the larger states would be in the same position. So you can't automatically assume that you have anything in your pocket just because you're doing better than the other guy.
So you don't think a 'easily manipulated public' was an issue, well have you ever heard of 'Yellow Journalism' or the 'House Committee on Un-American Activities', it dragged us into terrible things as the 'public' demanded action. It was a factor even in the early days of the country as the "War Hawks” manipulated it into the War of 1812.
As for Maine and Nebraska, it diminishes their importance as winner take all definitely gets the attention and more time from the running politicians.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Oh, that's what you meant by "mob?" :chuckle:
Well, I hope you didn't miss the pride parade in Starkville MS.
Who said anything about it being supported by the GOP? You're moving the goalposts. You seem to think that only the best people live in red states. I'm pointing out to you that because a state is red it doesn't means its people are more "moral." You're the one who referred to the "moral, red, and central expanse."
Did you know that a pro-life organization commissioned a survey which found that 70% of the respondents who'd obtained an abortion identified as Christian?
There's your mission outreach, right there in your own community.
Last edited:
I actually said that was a concern, related to regionalism and education. What it wasn't related to is the city/country bit as per your:
"But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance."
The answer still being, "No," for the reasons set out prior. The urban vs rural consideration is a modern one. If anything, the residents of cities would have had that fear at the time the EC was created, being so comparatively small a piece of the American pie.
I answered you on this and you haven't added anything new to it. So here it is again: Maine and Nebraska don't appear to think its the case. I don't either. You have to remember the larger states would be in the same position. So you can't automatically assume that you have anything in your pocket just because you're doing better than the other guy.
Well, the problem you have is that perception becomes reality, and those in the populated centers are seen as overwhelming the more rural sections of the country. So the electoral college is seem as a bulwark against the New York or California controlling the outcome of all elections, and that is a perception not much will change.
I cant see the Democrats selecting another woman after going down with Hillary in the last election, too much baggage, but we shall see. As for the Republican ticket, they need to start looking for younger candidates and promoting them, or all you will have is a bunch of old men or worn out retreads, once Trump is no longer there.
I'd say that's certainly the narrative the right wing media outlets are pusing. They aren't really saying how that manifests, but they're certainly making hay from it.
Time for someone to stand up to the message and note the problems in it on the national stage. I suspect you'll get a bit of that during the cycle.
bibleverse2
New member
Why? Why would anyone be proud of practicing the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27)?
The red states rightly do not require people to support homosexuality, or the murderous practice of abortion.
For example, may God bless the Oklahoma state judge who recently supported the state's legislative and executive ban on dismemberment abortion.
It is shocking that anyone would support it.
Imagine a living child being ripped apart, limb from limb, and calling this "reproductive care".
Such a monstrous, murderous lie can only have come from Satan himself (John 8:44).