Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Max Rockatansky]

Awesome. So how long before the Constitutional Amendment will be passed correcting the EC problem?

I totally read that wrong and thought that you said the ED problem. It seemed like you wanted a constitutional amendment to guarantee access to Viagra or something.

It wouldn’t be incorrect to say Congress has an ED problem.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

States are not sovereign. Even before the Civil War the notion of State sovereignty was long settled, but certainly after the war the issue was dead.

Regardless, as I have pointed out so many times I no longer know in which threads, the EC's mandate has long been circumvented by the States such that it no longer exists (and it had little to nothing to do with State sovereignty to begin with and everything to do with protecting slavery). The majority of the States have castrated the notion of "faithless" electors, requiring instead that their electors act as rubber stamps for the popular vote winner.

Iow, the popular vote is the only vote that exists. There is no other vote other than as a meaningless theatre.

So we are left with a vestigial arm long since cut off that serves absolutely no purpose, other than to unjustifiably weight my vote to equal 10,000 of your vote, just because you live five feet away from me. In effect.

It is a national office and it should be decided by a national vote. Period. Just flip it and consider the outrage if State elections were all determined by a national vote. The outrage would never end.

No state has magical powers that transform its inhabitants into different classes of American votes, yet that is precisely what the EC does, only without merit. It doesn't matter what anyone wishes to argue in favor of the EC, it is objectively, conclusively and irrefutably non-existent in all substantive forms and serves no justifiable purpose.

The only reasons it still exists are (1) it takes too much effort to get rid of it and (2) it allows for election fraud, which is all Republicans have left to them, since they cannot win on merit.

Awesome. So how long before the Constitutional Amendment will be passed correcting the EC problem?

Likely never, so long as Republicans exist and can block it. Why do you ask? I hope it's not because of some asinine point about how candidates need to factor the EC into their strategies because every candidat always does that.

Since you’ve already gone on record claiming that the Preamble (and, by inference, the rest of the Constitution) isn’t binding, it’s unsurprising that you don’t know the Constituitonal amendment process.

Here’s the short answer: Even if the Democrats had the WH and all of Congress, the States would each still have to ratify the Amendment. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to look at a political affiliation map of the US to calculate the odds for getting rid of the EC.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Since you’ve already gone on record claiming that the Preamble (and, by inference, the rest of the Constitution) isn’t binding

What? Where in your fevered dreams did I claim that the Preamble and by inference the "rest of the Constitution" isn't binding?

it’s unsurprising that you don’t know the Constituitonal amendment process.

Wtf are you babbling about? Do you think that if you type something that just magically makes it true?

Here’s the short answer:

To what question? Your own?

Even if the Democrats had the WH and all of Congress, the States would each still have to ratify the Amendment.

Everyone knows this. Are you going to tell us the sky is blue next?

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to look at a political affiliation map of the US to calculate the odds for getting rid of the EC.

Yeah, I know, genius, hence my original concluding paragraph (emphasis added for crystal clarity):

The only reasons it [the EC] still exists are (1) it takes too much effort to get rid of it and (2) it allows for election fraud, which is all Republicans have left to them, since they cannot win on merit.

And then my initial response to your insipid question:

So how long before the Constitutional Amendment will be passed correcting the EC problem?

Likely never, so long as Republicans exist and can block it.

Did you think you were responding to someone else, or something? Genuine question.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

What? Where in your fevered dreams did I claim that the Preamble and by inference the "rest of the Constitution" isn't binding?...

Sorry, I confused you with another member: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...former-slaves’&p=613751&viewfull=1#post613751

BTW, nice rant about the Electoral College. Your freedom to do so, but it's not going anywhere.

 

[angelo]

Perhaps The Founding Fathers thought that to preserve the relevance of ALL 50 States was the way to go. Which in hindsight was the correct thing to do. Otherwise, States like California with it's 40 million inhabitants would walk all over the much smaller states and make their votes irrelevant.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...lainer/7787472

I favor change. I see no valid reason why Farmer's should have more power than people living in cities.

That's called "gerrymandering!"

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Perhaps The Founding Fathers thought that to preserve the relevance of ALL 50 States was the way to go. Which in hindsight was the correct thing to do. Otherwise, States like California with it's 40 million inhabitants would walk all over the much smaller states and make their votes irrelevant.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...lainer/7787472

I favor change. I see no valid reason why Farmer's should have more power than people living in cities.

That's called "gerrymandering!"

No, that would be the exact opposite of gerrymandering. That would be correcting the wrongs made by gerrymandering.

 

[angelo]

That's called "gerrymandering!"

No, that would be the exact opposite of gerrymandering. That would be correcting the wrongs made by gerrymandering.

So according to your logic the founding fathers of the constitution got it all wrong. Big more population States like California should have all the say while smaller States like say, Wyoming should have no say whatsoever? Wyoming should have no college votes at all because of its tiny, as compared to California, population? Yea, that seems fair.......not!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's called "gerrymandering!"

No, that would be the exact opposite of gerrymandering. That would be correcting the wrongs made by gerrymandering.

So according to your logic the founding fathers of the constitution got it all wrong.

Except for slavery concessions, quite the contrary. They got it all right by creating a document deliberately designed to expand with the times. State sovereignty, for example, died almost immediately (long before the Civil War, when it died conclusively). Indeed, most scholars say it died the second they all signed the Constitution and affirmed “We, the People” not “We, the States.”

Big more population States

States don’t actually exist; they are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn on maps. There is no difference between an American that lives on one plot of land and an American that lives five feet away. They are both Americans.

So let’s see if you can actually make a coherent argument as to why my one vote in the People’s election (i.e., federal), should count for 10,000 of your votes just because I live five feet away from you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Awesome. So how long before the Constitutional Amendment will be passed correcting the EC problem?

I totally read that wrong and thought that you said the ED problem. It seemed like you wanted a constitutional amendment to guarantee access to Viagra or something.

Make America Great Again?

 

[angelo]

So according to your logic the founding fathers of the constitution got it all wrong.

Except for slavery concessions, quite the contrary. They got it all right by creating a document deliberately designed to expand with the times. State sovereignty, for example, died almost immediately (long before the Civil War, when it died conclusively). Indeed, most scholars say it died the second they all signed the Constitution and affirmed “We, the People” not “We, the States.”

Big more population States

States don’t actually exist; they are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn on maps. There is no difference between an American that lives on one plot of land and an American that lives five feet away. They are both Americans.

So let’s see if you can actually make a coherent argument as to why my one vote in the People’s election (i.e., federal), should count for 10,000 of your votes just because I live five feet away from you.

perhaps you may get an idea of why this is so here..................................The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.

 

[angelo]

So according to your logic the founding fathers of the constitution got it all wrong.

Except for slavery concessions, quite the contrary. They got it all right by creating a document deliberately designed to expand with the times. State sovereignty, for example, died almost immediately (long before the Civil War, when it died conclusively). Indeed, most scholars say it died the second they all signed the Constitution and affirmed “We, the People” not “We, the States.”

Big more population States

States don’t actually exist; they are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn on maps. There is no difference between an American that lives on one plot of land and an American that lives five feet away. They are both Americans.

So let’s see if you can actually make a coherent argument as to why my one vote in the People’s election (i.e., federal), should count for 10,000 of your votes just because I live five feet away from you.

 

[RVonse]

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

If I may present Exhibit A: our current American president. In what function of government is his "expertise" sufficient?

Hopefully some of his other supervisors have noticed his deficit of expertise as well, and will help pink-slip him in 2020.

Sure. Even the most diligent homeowner sometimes finds out too late that the tradesman they hired is incompetent.

And some fools even keep on bringing back the same guy who fucked up before. There's never been a world shortage of either incompetence nor foolishness.

Most Americans recognized that Trump was a blowhard, an adulterer and a narcissist long before election day. That wasn't the problem. The problem what that most Americans settled for voting on one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections. IMO, the least deplorable scumbag won but that doesn't mean they aren't still a deplorable scumbag....or continue to be one. Trump's attack of the media after the attempted bombings is just one example.

Donald Trump only got elected on his policies of populism and anti-globalism and nothing more.

Hillary would have been an effective globalist leader and nothing more. She would have done exactly what the globalist corporate cabal wanted from her and she would have probably even fixed her hair to look pretty doing it. She might have skimmed some more money off her foundation but other than that would have basically stayed out of trouble.

But that just isn't what the people wanted this time around. It was a simple as that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So according to your logic the founding fathers of the constitution got it all wrong.

Except for slavery concessions, quite the contrary. They got it all right by creating a document deliberately designed to expand with the times. State sovereignty, for example, died almost immediately (long before the Civil War, when it died conclusively). Indeed, most scholars say it died the second they all signed the Constitution and affirmed “We, the People” not “We, the States.”

Big more population States

States don’t actually exist; they are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn on maps. There is no difference between an American that lives on one plot of land and an American that lives five feet away. They are both Americans.

So let’s see if you can actually make a coherent argument as to why my one vote in the People’s election (i.e., federal), should count for 10,000 of your votes just because I live five feet away from you.

Totally agree. I've never understood what the hell difference it makes regarding the state that one lives in.

 

[lpetrich]

The creators of the Constitution considered some other possibilities, like election by state governors and election by Congress. Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68).

He claimed that the electors would have broader knowledge than many ordinary people and thus be able to make better choices. He also proposed that the electors vote in their home states so that they can be less influenced by demagogues and by foreign meddlers.

The Electoral College is thus a failure. It soon became a rubber-stamp body, and it has failed to keep a certain well-known Russian-supported demagogue out of office.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

The creators of the Constitution considered some other possibilities, like election by state governors and election by Congress. Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68).

He claimed that the electors would have broader knowledge than many ordinary people and thus be able to make better choices. He also proposed that the electors vote in their home states so that they can be less influenced by demagogues and by foreign meddlers.

The Electoral College is thus a failure. It soon became a rubber-stamp body, and it has failed to keep a certain well-known Russian-supported demagogue out of office.

Non Sequitur since many LWers are seeking to replace the EC with direct democracy AKA popular vote. That's like saying we're going to reduce auto deaths by forcing everyone to ride motorcycles without a helmet. The EC isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to offer.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The creators of the Constitution considered some other possibilities, like election by state governors and election by Congress. Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68).

He claimed that the electors would have broader knowledge than many ordinary people and thus be able to make better choices. He also proposed that the electors vote in their home states so that they can be less influenced by demagogues and by foreign meddlers.

The Electoral College is thus a failure. It soon became a rubber-stamp body, and it has failed to keep a certain well-known Russian-supported demagogue out of office.

Non Sequitur since many LWers are seeking to replace the EC with direct democracy AKA popular vote. That's like saying we're going to reduce auto deaths by forcing everyone to ride motorcycles without a helmet. The EC isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to offer.

Well, you're not a democrat. Of course you support the EC. I would too if I were in your shoes. We have the senate. The senate can protect the state. I just feel that the Presidential power has grown so much that it should require a majority of America to elect the office. Secondly, why should the state where someone lives matter so much? I live within 10 matters of another state. Half the people in my company are from another state. We have a salesman with Texas residency. The EC sucks...

 

[Jarhyn]

The creators of the Constitution considered some other possibilities, like election by state governors and election by Congress. Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist Paper #68 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68).

He claimed that the electors would have broader knowledge than many ordinary people and thus be able to make better choices. He also proposed that the electors vote in their home states so that they can be less influenced by demagogues and by foreign meddlers.

The Electoral College is thus a failure. It soon became a rubber-stamp body, and it has failed to keep a certain well-known Russian-supported demagogue out of office.

Non Sequitur since many LWers are seeking to replace the EC with direct democracy AKA popular vote. That's like saying we're going to reduce auto deaths by forcing everyone to ride motorcycles without a helmet. The EC isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to offer.

No. It really isn't. The best we have to offer would be an approval voting system.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Except for slavery concessions, quite the contrary. They got it all right by creating a document deliberately designed to expand with the times. State sovereignty, for example, died almost immediately (long before the Civil War, when it died conclusively). Indeed, most scholars say it died the second they all signed the Constitution and affirmed “We, the People” not “We, the States.”



States don’t actually exist; they are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn on maps. There is no difference between an American that lives on one plot of land and an American that lives five feet away. They are both Americans.

So let’s see if you can actually make a coherent argument as to why my one vote in the People’s election (i.e., federal), should count for 10,000 of your votes just because I live five feet away from you.

Appropriate it's for "dummies" considering this section (around the 24 second mark):

It’s purpose is to ensure small states are represented.

As I pointed out, in the context of a national election in particular, states don't actually exist, so there is nothing that can be "represented." In regard to representation in Congress, however, the arbitrary state borders act as sub-domains, that allow for more localized governance and in that regard, they exist relative to how the Federal oversight operates, but that's an entirely different matter.

While you're looking in the "dummies" section, look up Madison's Virginia Plan, which was larger states arguing that they should get more power vs. the New Jersey Plan, which was small states arguing for one-state/one-vote (i.e., NOT for representation based on state population) and then the Great Compromise that merged the two; the Senate being equal to appease the small states and the House being disproportionate based on population to appease the larger states.

And note the fact that in the Virginia Plan, Madison argued that the People should only be allowed to elect the House of Representatives and they in turn would choose literally everything else (the Senate members, the VP and the President).

As you will quickly see, the issue had nothing to do with the EC. It only became about the EC after the Compromise established how the Senate and House would be structured.

The video continues:

It forces candidates to appeal to all constituents, not just target areas with the most voters.

Ironic, since we're seeing candidates only target areas with the most electoral voters and not appealing to all constituents.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I've read through this thread now and I still haven't heard any solid argument for why Hillary is so bad.

Nor will you ever. It's all just arguments from incredulity and personal hatred that whenever the surface gets even the tiniest bit scratched you find it's not based on anything she actually did or said (that isn't take out of context, sometimes blatantly so).