Jpowers

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

25,474 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

 

Disagree.  Slavery wasn't a hot topic when the constitution was written.  It became an issue in the mid 1800s.

 

 

Just now, T-Falcon said:

Again wrong

 

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[11]Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, however, delegates came to oppose nomination by congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.[12]

 

 

OK T-Falcon said it better.  I should have said that slavery wasn't the reason the electoral college was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T-Falcon said:

Again wrong

 

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia proposal was the first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[11]Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. After being debated, however, delegates came to oppose nomination by congress for the reason that it could violate the separation of powers. James Wilson then made motion for electors for the purpose of choosing the president.[12]

 

 

Copy and paste what Madison said in that article next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the EC per se, it’s the winner-take-all aspect of it.  I think the independent effort by states to declare their EC votes for the national winner makes a lot of sense.  Can effectively end the EC without amending the constitution.

Or all states could agree to apportion their EC proportionately, but that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own crazy view is that instead of getting rid of the EC, which isn't going to happen, maybe we should consider returning the role of the presidency to what it was originally intended instead of the quasi-monarchcy that it's slowly been morphed into. 

The executive branch was never intended to wield the power it does currently. But that's been the product of years of partisanship and ruling parties shortsightedly giving their own president powers without consideration that the other party will eventually wield those powers at some point. 

 

eatcorn, JDaveG, Jpowers and 7 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, T-Falcon said:

Well to be fair getting rid of the electoral college will start a civil war. That's not even up for debate. 

Still obsessed with death.

 

Like clockwork, the response:

::worzone:: "No I'm not! Show me where I said that! You're putting words in my mouth again!"

::me::

tenor.gif?itemid=13955067

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

My own crazy view is that instead of getting rid of the EC, which isn't going to happen, maybe we should consider returning the role of the presidency to what it was originally intended instead of the quasi-monarchcy that it's slowly been morphed into. 

The executive branch was never intended to wield the power it does currently. But that's been the product of years of partisanship and ruling parties shortsightedly giving their own president powers with consideration that the other party will eventually wield those powers at some point. 

 

Agreed.  The past several presidents have abused executive orders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

My own crazy view is that instead of getting rid of the EC, which isn't going to happen, maybe we should consider returning the role of the presidency to what it was originally intended instead of the quasi-monarchcy that it's slowly been morphed into. 

The executive branch was never intended to wield the power it does currently. But that's been the product of years of partisanship and ruling parties shortsightedly giving their own president powers with consideration that the other party will eventually wield those powers at some point. 

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Copy and paste what Madison said in that article next.

Alright, since you clearly aren't going to since it ruins your arguments:

Quote

Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[16]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

My own crazy view is that instead of getting rid of the EC, which isn't going to happen, maybe we should consider returning the role of the presidency to what it was originally intended instead of the quasi-monarchcy that it's slowly been morphed into. 

The executive branch was never intended to wield the power it does currently. But that's been the product of years of partisanship and ruling parties shortsightedly giving their own president powers with consideration that the other party will eventually wield those powers at some point. 

 

^^^^ this and let's also get back to

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Legendary SB said:

Agreed.  The past several presidents have abused executive orders.  

And Trump has taken that to even more absurd levels, like his claim of “absolute immunity” for executive officials, his declaration of a “national emergency” to build a wall that he couldn’t get Congress to fund, and his numerous executive orders that have been smacked down by the courts.

You complain about abuses of executive orders (especially by Obama) but ignore that your guy is abusing those powers much more frequently and flagrantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Still obsessed with death.

 

Like clockwork, the response:

::worzone:: "No I'm not! Show me where I said that! You're putting words in my mouth again!"

::me::

tenor.gif?itemid=13955067

Poor fella. I'm just giving you the likeliest scenario. Those calling to deligitimize an election are the ones calling for death pretending their actions won't have consequences. Anyone who wants that is a lunatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eatcorn said:

Say what?

You know, we should suggest that North Korea allow opposition parties to run in the election and that the regime should stop murdering and killing those who speak out against it.  The president should be chosen by the majority of North Koreans.

T-Falcon:  Why do you want to delegitimize an election????

falconsd56 and Gritzblitz 2.0 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The problem is not the EC per se, it’s the winner-take-all aspect of it.  I think the independent effort by states to declare their EC votes for the national winner makes a lot of sense.  Can effectively end the EC without amending the constitution.

Or all states could agree to apportion their EC proportionately, but that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

 

3 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

Say what?

 When people seek ways to delegitimize an election by trying to manipulate around the Constitution they are going to meet resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

Conservatives: The EC was in no way formed because of slavery.

James Madison: The EC was formed because of slavery.

Conservatives:

tenor.gif

Madison wanted popular vote, doesn't mean everyone else did. 

The Legendary SB likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T-Falcon said:

Madison wanted popular vote, doesn't mean everyone else did. 

True.  Madison was not emperor and it took a room full of people to draft the Constitution.  They agreed on the EC system we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You know, we should suggest that North Korea allow opposition parties to run in the election and that the regime should stop murdering and killing those who speak out against it.  The president should be chosen by the majority of North Koreans.

T-Falcon:  Why do you want to delegitimize an election????

The stupidity of this post is flabbergasting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, T-Falcon said:

 

 When people seek ways to delegitimize an election by trying to manipulate around the Constitution they are going to meet resistance.

Yeah, resistance from 30% of the public, most of whom want it just because they think it helps their party win.  

I think the other 65-70% of us are okay with changing the rules to be more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serge said:

 

So it was essentially a coincidence that he knew to pick fights with CNN specifically and act like he's infatuated with Vladimir Putin. He's a total dumb*** that just happened to get most of his loudest detractors hooked on a conspiracy that would ultimately undermine their credibility and diminish the public's faith in the media and in investigations into Trump.

First, I've been saying he's "not-too-bright" and the like, not that he's a "total dumb***."  To the extent I've said something like the latter before, I assure you it was hyperbole.

Second, it's not coincidence.  He picks fights in very public ways because that's what he's always done.  He's obsessive and impulsive, and craves attention and verification-of-his-genius above basically everything else..  And he fawns over dictators not as part of some scheme, but because he likes that they can do whatever the **** they want and sees himself similarly. 

And what I've just described also describes basically how he's always been and the people he's fawned over.  What you're describing would be completely out of character for him, as if at age 70 he just became this other person whose compulsive narcissistic rants for attention are something more than that, more than what they've always been.

Like I've said, the apparatus around him is basically exactly as you have described.  But there is little evidence that he has ever been capable of the kind of systemic, subtle, thoughtful actions that you're attributing to him, yet you seem to think everyone else has it wrong about him.  He's no more what you describe than he is what the right-ring describes (some crime fighting genius super man), he is exactly who he has always been.  Just now he's doing it from the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Legendary SB said:

I see a lot of ad hominem here which is a typical lefty tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

No, actually ad hominem is more typically a right-wing tactic, along with:

1. Ad ignorantiam, which is to claim something is true because it cannot be proven false. (Birtherism)

2. Si Conclusion (Assuming the conclusion) - A subcategory of “begging the question," which is also a subcategory of circular reasoning. (You hear this all the time on Fox News when a host says something has been "well-reported on this and other networks," when it fact they are just quoting each other.)

3. TU QUOQUE - when those on the right attempts to appeal to their own hypocrisy by focusing on the acts of the people or person making the argument, as opposed to addressing the merits of the actual argument. (ie. Fishermen can’t protest offshore drilling because their fishing poles were “trucked to the store.”)

4. Remota Causa - (Avoiding the issue) - *see Ad hominem* - Never addresses the facts someone presents to them, but brings up the number of undocumented immigrants in the nation or the city of Chicago as a case in point for, whatever.

5. Argumentum Ad Populum - calling a person you disagree with names (*see adhominem) or by saying that person you disagree with is a bad person because of (*ie. communism). It cast judgment on the person's argument by casting judgment upon the person making the argument.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Yeah, resistance from 30% of the public, most of whom want it just because they think it helps their party win.  

I think the other 65-70% of us are okay with changing the rules to be more fair.

Has nothing to do with party wins. We've had basically the same number of Democrats as republican presidents. This is a stupid argument. You keep making these terrible arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, T-Falcon said:

Madison wanted popular vote, doesn't mean everyone else did. 

You're right: Southern slave owners didn't, just as he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now