All of which is completely unproven, fueled by speculation by Trump designed to appease his insatiable ego, that can't quite handle having been elected without the full support of the public.
There is no "Popular Vote" winner.
- Thread starter fool
- Start date
All of which is completely unproven, fueled by speculation by Trump designed to appease his insatiable ego, that can't quite handle having been elected without the full support of the public.
What about the ones not in Europe?
I only take seriously warnings about repeating history from people who seem to have a grasp on it. You fall below the bar.
Was that before, or after they copied the architecture and governing systems from classical Europe?
They did view themselves as new, in a way. They were emerging from the Medieval monarchies of Europe to form a new, less religious, more dynamic society. They didn't wish to ignore the lessons of their history, or break from any existing idea no matter how sound it was.
The Founding Fathers needed a compromise that would allow the slave-holding states their place in a new nation without imminently threatening their economy. That's why we have an Electoral College. Hamilton's notion that it would act as a bulwark against popular passions has never actually worked, and the fact is that the majority often seems to have better judgement than our entrenched political leaders anyway, and is fundamentally more legitimate.
America is so different when you don't like it.. and so much the same when you don't like it :chuckle:
Monarchy was tied into Christianity, that's about as far as their rejection of a Church State went- none of you liberals have ever accurately represented Jefferson's Separation Clause or otherwise their religiosity period. No historical account actually shows yall's notions there, as it is just revisionist nonsense.
Just like liberals to make something entirely about slavery, racism, whatever.
That's just a skewed, bullcrap rendition you liberals are now pulling out of the hat to encourage the victim card among your racially sensitive minorities and non-binary idiots.
I realize how confusing that could be to someone as binary-minded as yourself, so let me explain how it works:
On the one hand:
The United States created or revived a number of ideas so good that they were copied or derived independently by a good deal of the world. These include the written constitution, republicanism, separation of church and state, a bill of rights.
On the other hand:
The United States also implemented a number of really bad ideas. Typically, these are worked out of political systems as they evolve. Slavery, segregation, the 3/5ths compromise, and the electoral college.
There now. Not so hard to understand, is it?
It was more than that. But I digress...
I will grant you that this is not the reason traditionally taught in civics classes, or the reason that the Federalist papers give for it. But intentional or not, slavery, and the Southern insistence on representation of slaves in apportionment of representation would have had that impact. It's hard to believe they simply didn't think about it when it came to the EC.
Actually i am not a "Trumpette" as you say, in fact he was not my choice at all until it became a choice between a corrupt felon & him, the choice was quite clear at that point. Now that we got that straight, I don't play party politics, I believe in this country, it's constitution, and the government that was designed under it. I haven't denied anything at this point Rex, I think for myself, I do my own research, and I asked you the question because your post read as if there are more than one representative republic in the world, There are many countries that espouse being a republic but, I am not aware of any that are designed even remotely as well as our own....designed around liberty, inalienable rights, and private property rights as our country is.
The U.S. system stands alone Rex, it is a unique design of populace, state, & federal, I don't intend to try an make distinctions or comparisons to any other nation because I don't have to. This nation has stood for over 200 years with a system of checks & balances that keep it from becoming a tyrannical left or tyrannical right nation and all the modern liberal wants is their way and the only way they can get it is by deconstructing or modifying the constitution to fit their worldview. Although this country doesn't appeal to you it is quite obvious, that is the governmental system we work under so if you want something different you will have to garner the super majority to change it or move to one of the utopias you have listed here.
It takes a bit more research to define what kind of republic your dealing with than looking at a list on wikipedia Rex. Interestingly you have listed some of the most despotic nations which espouse "republic" as well, for petes sake China calls itself a "republic" and it is a communist/fascist state. Would you really want to live in a nation that practices a caste system as India or Mexico? Talk about inequality...I mean really are these the examples of government you would want to model after when we know that they are all (except Belgium)oppressors of their own people? and Belgium is a parliamentary republic which is vastly different than the U.S. The point is you believe the grass is greener elsewhere & that it is somehow better elsewhere, if that were the case people would not be banging down the doors to leave their country's to be Americans. Is our system perfect? I would say there are flaws but, certainly not in our election process nor the design of the constitution that thwarts regionally isolated ideologies even if they are a majority by population. You have to sell it nationwide or you are just a voice of the minority of states...that is the design and it works.
Sure, you never play party politics. You just never seem to give Democrats a fair evaluation.
Whatever you say.
And I'm sure we shouldn't worry about the apparent attempt to prevent a proper regular accounting of Trump's cabinet nominees:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1...gs_trump_news_conference_scheduled_on_one_day
None of those things are defining of a republic. A republic is simply a state without a monarchy.
It's hardly a unique design. Political entities seldom are. The features that are unique are unique because other countries have felt that they were a bad idea. My point to Cruc was a simple one. He suggested that the use of the electoral college was down to the US's status as a representative republic. I pointed out that there are a lot of representative republics in the world, and none of them but the US (as far as I'm aware) use that structure. You introduced federalism as an explanation and justification, but neither of you have really explained why it's such an essential element of our system.
In what specific way?
Republics aren't necessarily free or democratic. They do not have hereditary dynasties, but they can have dictators. Of course, the United States imprisons a lot more people than any of those other oppressive regimes.
That wasn't the question, although I'd question whether the caste systems were really all that different from the American class system, which originally included hereditary slavery.
Do you think that the United States doesn't oppress some of its people?
So? How does that effect the point you were trying to make?
You're assuming that the government is the cause of the success. I don't think that's true at all.
It works for you, for now. I don't think that in the long run, frustrating the will of the People is going to be sustainable.
I would venture to say that I have lived a lot longer than you...just a guess, and in that time I have watched both parties make good decisions & bad but, I can say from experience of years that Democrats & their socialist policies have caused more harm than good. That is about as fair of an evaluation as I can give you.
Funny how all that accounting that you are going on about here never happened under the current administration, and you weren't complaining then. You know, having a Secretary of State selling the office for contributions to a dubious foundation or doing government business on a private server, IRS scandal, an attorney general that was put in contempt of congress for not following the law...accounting like that? like being accountable? Please... if your going to be fair then hold the same standard.
Not true, a republic is a government that is constructed by a charter or constitution that binds, limits, & defines the responsibilities & powers of the state. This can look different depending on the charter or constitution that the country ratifies so, what I was saying was that the expectation that this republic, the United States, would look like, or govern like, or vote like another is not a viable comparison because no other nation has a constitution that is the same as ours, in fact I would guess that no two republics are exactly the same.
Actually it is a unique design, as I pointed out above.
That is your opinion, not fact, and the fact that of these countries play second fiddle to the United States proves it.
I don't speak for Cruc, nor did I respond to that comment, though I would say that our electoral system is not because we are a representative republic but, because the constitution of this republic defines how we vote for our president.
And I have pointed out that no other country will use this structure because only this nation is bound to this constitution, every country is a sovereign entity, and every republic is bound to it's own charter, nothing says they need to be the same.
In a nutshell? I would say the sharing of power between the states & the federal puts a check on tyranny. People will always debate about the roles of government but, the constitution and the federalist system requires consensus of a super majority across an entire nation to make sweeping changes. Your political passions and mine differ greatly Rex but, having a system which does not allow extremes on either end of the spectrum to dominate allows this nation to thrive. I
The details make the difference, would you lump the Chinese "republic" in with the U.S. "republic"? they are not all the same and a deeper look at any of them shows the difference, you don't get that from a generic list.
As I pointed out above but, the difference is that we imprison for criminal behavior we don't not execute or send to a gulag for opposing political opinions.
There is a big difference, a caste system is something you are born into and are powerless to change, where a person can be born into poverty and achieve anything by their own merit in this class system...look at Dr Ben Carson, Jesse Owens, Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln...the list is endless of those that were born in poverty and rose above it, their sweat, their toil, not a government check or handout. If you or any other is expecting the government to change your situation, you, or they will be sorely disappointed but, none of these listed, or many others were powerless to change their social status under this system. I would also note that it is because of this constitution that slavery was abolished, as well as many civil rights extended just from the nature of how it was written, throw out the baby with the bathwater if you like but, it is this constitution that has proven to extend liberty & justice to all, albeit it took time to change the attitudes of the nation, and the constitution only backed it up...liberty that is.
No...I believe that is a perception of those that don't see opportunity & act on it, and in turn expect opportunity to be handed to them. Floods of illegal aliens come across our border because they see opportunity to change their situation (I have seen it personally) yet those born here just whine for the handout...it is called complacency & laziness, not lack of opportunity.
It didn't effect it, I showed that all republics are not the same...that was the point.
False, my assumption is less government is where success begins, certainly not because of it, I desire less government not more.
Time will tell indeed but, if you think that your ideology is "the will of the people" than you better start showing majorities somewhere besides a majority in a minority of states, and minorities in a majority of local, state, and federal seats as well because if you look at the aggregate of representation that liberals have now as compared to when Obama took office, you all are losing ground, not taking it... time to come back from far left to middle if you want a seat at the table.
Last edited:
Likely enough.
So have I.
I'm afraid we're going to have to differ here, both on the wisdom of the policies, and on the classification of them as "socialist". But that has next to nothing to do with my rejection of Trump, or my criticism of the design of the US electoral system.
That's simply untrue, and it reflects the reflexive unfairness that you've shown to Democrats. Obama moved quickly on his cabinet, but they were still subject to a rigorous vetting process, both by the incoming administration, and the Senate via the GAO.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/25/obama.cabinet/index.html
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf
There is a difference between differing on policy and being suitable for the office on a basic ethical level.
I don't want to re-litigate all of these charges, but they all occurred (if they occurred at all) after the appointment. I don't expect a President to be able to prevent all misconduct. Just to subject their nominations to basic ethical consideration before being appointed and confirmed.
My experience is that you don't have any willingness to consider another perspective on any of these claims, so I don't see any reason to try to convince you. You are hardened in your opinions by your general contempt for the President.
That's a common, but not defining aspect of a republic. For instance, Israel is a republic with no constitution (it has a set of "basic laws" that are given constitutional weight by their courts). And it describes republics from The US to China. And, having such a codified set of supreme laws doesn't make a state a republic.
You reject any comparison between the US and other countries? You don't see any value in comparing similar structures? Because the Founders definitely did. It was even modeled explicitly on several systems, including British, Romans, Greek....
It's a federal, presidential republic with a bicameral legislature and an independent judiciary. And if you have any doubt that this is both common and a pretty realistic description of the US system, here's a quote from the Wikipedia page that should seem a bit familiar:
| Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems: Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say presidentialism raises the stakes of elections, exacerbates their polarization and can lead to authoritarianism (Linz). Political gridlock — the separation of powers of a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this can create an undesirable and long-term political gridlock whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible (Linz, Mainwaring and Shugart). In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other. Impediments to leadership change — presidential systems often make it difficult to remove a president from office early, for example after taking actions that become unpopular. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
It's almost like there are people who study this stuff systematically.
I'm curious, if the US were to "play second fiddle" to another country, would you automatically assume that that country had a superior design?
Right. I'm just letting you know the nature of the discussion that you're walking into. He used specific terms to describe the uniqueness of the United States. I used those terms to expound on the system of government that we have.
The United States isn't bound to use this constitution, for that matter. And that doesn't explain why we should use such a bizarre structure. It's been discredited in nearly all parts of the world because it leads to undemocratic results.
Sure. But it's also a system designed less for a single nation than for a set of fractious states trying to sustain any union that they could. The proper balance of federal and state power is one of the oldest and most distinctively American questions, but I don't think it's unreasonable in a country where national policy has such a large impact on the entire country that we insist on actually democratic institutions at the top level.
That depends on the point being compared. There are definitely some similarities.
I don't disagree there. What I'm looking for from you is an explanation of why you think the United State's situation is so unique that it requires an institution that has otherwise been uniformly rejected by the entire rest of the world.
I'm sure China can come up with criminal charges for the people they imprison, too. There is very clear evidence that some of the people who ended up in US prisons ended up there because of a political intent to suppress them.
Right, I understand that that is the distinction between a class system and a caste system, but it was abolished in 1821 in Mexico. We didn't abolish slavery until 1865, and that was just as hereditary and involuntary as caste, but you're using this old system of colonial Mexico to suggest that today it's not a free country. If that's the standard, then the history of slavery make the case against the US.
Yes yes, you're a typical white guy, living in a country designed to give you every advantage, oblivious of the help you've received, and critical of anyone expecting a similar opportunity. You don't need to remind me.
The Constitution was used to abolish slavery, after protecting it for several generation. The function of the Constitution was to provide a framework of law to enact the abolition, but so could any number of other systems, many of which actually did so long before ours did. The Constitution's role was passive.
It's far from the only way to ensure such things, and it's been a rather long wait for some of those groups. I'd probably only rewrite the first two articles of the Constitution, if it were up to me. There's some good stuff in there, along with the bad.
And I would say that that is your attitude of entitlement, blinding you to your own dependency on the system. Conservatives are well-trained to resent others, but they mostly grew up in a society where the government moved aggressively to create a middle-class for them to grow up in.
I know you make that argument in other places, but that is the assumption at the heart of the notion that people are "banging down our door" because of the design of our government, specifically things like the Electoral College.
In that sense, you're wrong on both sides of your self-contradictory argument.
"My ideology" isn't the subject of the discussion. The People voted for a different President, and a different Congress. Our poorly-designed voting system allowed an unpopular, unworthy candidate to win.
Our voting system is wonderfully designed. The EC was made to resist unqualified candidates- a Democrat just wasn't qualified for the interest of this country, plain and simple.
America doesn't do as other countries do and allow tyranny of small majorities when it is contrary to the country's need. Liberals need to understand that there is nothing orthodox about what they perpetuate, and too much of it causes problems. Countries need common leaders, not people who are adversarial to half of it.
Right, it allows the tyranny of small minorities instead.
Trump is adversarial to more Americans than Clinton.
Seriously, you need to do better than this.
No he isn't. Trump is about to mend the country back to a more unified state- the Left is the cause of the division. You all have drove half the country to hate you because you all have shown nothing but nasty contempt.
Seriously, 'you need to do better than this'- you all aren't sitting on anything but a lousy majority of brainwashed people who bought in to claims of Trump being a sexist Hitler. You see, the EC doesn't consider such tripe, but your naive voter does.
You all got served by a system that rejects your crap, go influence another country with it :wave2:
I can see you're still in a little bit of denial about the votes. Do you need a safe space?
Yes, he is so much the bigger man. That's why he calls his detractors enemies, and "haters and losers". Because he can just rise above it all.
Maybe you should try being less contemptible.
I'll take my "lousy" majority over your self-pitying mob of stupid, bitter, angry cuckservatives and white nationalists.
A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.
Breitbart calls it a gloriously effective insult.
I agree :chuckle:
Good to know.
We can differ on the electoral system, people have differed on it for years now but, it remains as part of fabric that this nation was framed under.
How couldn't he move fast after Reid changed the senate rules to suspend filibuster, and a 51 vote majority for all cabinet & judiciary positions, it went real fast with no public discourse on it at all really. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it is somehow foul play? The problem with the way that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi decided to squelch all opposing views, squelch any public discourse, refused to committee anything, or compromise, and rammed it down the people's throats are you really surprised that the same thing is about to happen in reverse? The art of compromise is why this nation is not far left or far right and until we see some give & take again the nation will remain polarized. What you are seeing with these confirmations with a 51 vote majority rule is how a majority rule system looks like, and this is how minorities are crushed under the majority's weight...not pretty is it? If Obama & the democrats would not have practiced a scorched earth, no compromise style of politics for the last 8 years, the nation would not be so divided, and maybe we could find policies we can all live with not a "My Way Or The Highway" brand of governing.
Who decide who is suitable? You? Me? Or the people at the ballot box? Your projecting what you believe is suitable and I am sorry Hillary Clinton was not suitable, or ethical.
And McConnell said all ethics papers will be in before any voting begins but, with the rules Reid enacted every appointee will be confirmed because democrats are powerless to stop it. Reid should have never played politics with the senate rules, he poisoned the well for any sort of order but, I assume you were OK with that action at the time because you were the one crushing the minority voice then...That is why it is important to play nice because things change.
I hold no contempt for the man, I do however hold in contempt his policies, ideology, and unwillingness to work for the good of all Americans, an unwillingness to compromise or find solutions that all Americans can live with that is. His disdain for the constitution (much like your own) and unwillingness to work within it I find totally unacceptable.
Israel's basic laws serve as it's constitution/charter and they declared that back when they enacted the basic laws. They like other republics have established a set of laws that govern, and define how the nation operates including their election system.
We can compare all you like but, to what end? This nation is not them...
I am sure there are, and these opinions are written with their bias, no? One you obviously agree with...I do note that they mention "Political Gridlock", personally I consider gridlock a good thing because anytime both sides agree on anything the citizenry always gets the shaft, the less politicians do the better from my experience. Gridlock leading to compromise seems to be where the best decisions are made for everyone.
I would if there were one that espoused liberty, inalienable rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech (with no safe spaces), et al. Do you know of that place? If so why are we not playing second fiddle?
It is bound to it unless you are of the anarchist persuasion, or you could find anyone to agree with that assertion that was willing to overthrow the current legitimate government. What a nonsensical statement...
The rest of the world is a dump in comparison, and if it were better people would be breaking down their doors to get in, where is that happening? Russia, Cuba, Iran...really where?
It is democratic but, you don't like the way that it is administered under this constitutional system. Pure democracy was rejected that is the system, you have to get enough people to agree to change it, and the fact that you can change it with a super majority of support makes it democratic. You don't get the Reid nuclear option for changing the constitution.
Please, do tell...
Really, I could not give a rip what any other country does, or rejects, the framers of this nation rejected all of their ideas & ideals and built on their own, came to a super majority consensus on how to frame this nation & ratified it in our constitution. I love my country, I love our constitution, & the beauty that it was written in, what it stands for, how it has stood the test of time with many injustices corrected just from it's contents. Your right I see no need to compare because all other countries get behind us, we don't get behind them, we are great because we have the superior design and always have. the world looks to the United States to lead because we do have the superior design...that works.
Details? Proof? make your case...
Now that is awfully racist & presumptuous of you... number one you assume I am white or of no ethnic group, and two you have no idea what my social status, or hardships I had to deal with in my lifetime, nor do you have any idea what opportunities I had, or the ones that I made happen through sheer hard work to change my social status. Assume much?
protected by white democrats I might add...and carried further through Jim Crowe, segregation, KKK, and other arms of the democratic party which oppose liberty, and equal rights. Quite the legacy really.
The constitution is framework in which our entire governmental & judicial system derive so I am not sure what your trying to convey. It is not passive at all it is the foundation that everything is built on.
You will take the good with the bad in any system, there is no utopia, you have to work within the system that is established...
You must be a millennial, you have never experienced a real conservative, and you won't under Trump either because he is not a conservative but, I can tell you that the reason the the impoverished Mexican will come here illegally, risking life & limb to come to this country is for the opportunity to become middle class, to make a better life . The difference between him/her & you is they see the opportunity, they know what real poverty is, and America holds possibilities for those willing to work for it. You can't even see the opportunity and you were born & raised here...just sad.
They are, 11 million of them & counting, and all because this country under this constitution affords them liberty, & opportunity, something government cannot provide.
Why? because you say so?
whatever...
No they did not, even if you could have your popular vote president, you lost the house by majority rules just as you please, as you lost the Senate in the same fashion. Your ideals & those of your president, Reid, Pelosi have been rejected and that is the part you are having such a problem with but, cheer up your in good company with the rest of the out of touch Hollywood crowd.
Last edited:
Every power in America is checked, including democracy. The Electoral College helps to prevent fanatical majority rule. The Left never gets the EC when it chooses contrary to a majority because liberals have a tendency to be extreme- they sometimes do not harbor the country's best interest, but instead vote according to a skewed or spastic narrative.
And the past several years have shown that quite plainly. They deny it, as if expecting that we shouldn't believe what we saw with our own eyes
And the past several years have shown that quite plainly. They deny it, as if expecting that we shouldn't believe what we saw with our own eyes
You don't think the Republicans hold a duty to the country first before their party? The ethics reviews aren't a part of the partisan process. They are a part of how the Senate fills its Constitutional duty. I would expect that any Senate would insist on them, even if the President's party held a unanimous count in the Senate.
We're too used to seeing all these things through a partisan filter. If we're a country, we have to be able to make common ground on at least a few things like basic ethics. And a number of Republicans have shown themselves to be quite principled on that count in the last few days.
Can you name one Obama nominee that the Senate moved to confirm without completed ethics reviews?
Obama's nominees faced an unprecedented wall of opposition. They were filibustered by default. They didn't seek to bypass ethics review or other routine checks. Or for that matter to prevent Republicans having their say in the matter.
I'm skeptical of the filibuster, as a general rule. Of course, I'll support its use in a valiant cause, and curse its loss when a bad measure passes too easily. But I think it empowers partisanship too much, especially as it's been used the past 8 years, and even beyond that to some extent.
There's not a lot of compromise of late in government.
But you mistake my complaint. I'm not asking that any of Trump's nominations require a supermajority to be confirmed. I'm suggesting that the way our Constitution is framed presumes that Republicans and Democrats alike should hold all the nominees to account, and see to it that they all have satisfactory records and are free of serious ethical problems. That's the standard, and it always has been. When Jeff Sessions was first rejected from the federal bench, it was by a vote in a committee with a Republican majority. If our leaders can't do that now, we have no business being a country at all, and we'll just go on bouncing from one polar opposite position to the other until we fly apart.
Hillary Clinton isn't nominated for anything. You're going to have to get over your hatred of her to give these nominees a fair examination. Republicans have the burden of actually governing now, and they can't afford, nor can we afford for them to, engage in bare partisan hackery.
Your question is a silly one, and in any case, it has an obvious answer. If you can't imagine anyone who could be unsuitable, then I question your imagination and your read of history. As for who makes the determination, obviously in the near-term that's the Senate, and in the longer term, the People. Although it is not an era of great statesmen, there is reason to hope that at least some in the Senate will take their duty to their country seriously.
It's a very small majority. Not one that can be taken for granted all the time. And the filibuster remains intact for most cases.
Compromise requires a partner. Mitch McConnell wasn't willing, ever.
The were originally intended to become a fully-codified single constitution. The constitution never materialized, but the basic laws remained. War and the circumstances of the nation's birth intervened.
No, but comparisons can be made that are enlightening.
The belief that this country is so unique that it is beyond comparison strikes me as akin to the belief that a cancer patient might have that they can't possibly die. Every country has some unique features, just like every person does, but they do all work in some largely classifiable ways, including this one.
That's silly and reductive. You can call expertise "bias" if you like, but that doesn't undo the expertise. You could be Noah Webster, and it could be argued that your pronouncements on spelling are "bias". But that doesn't mean you aren't worth listening to.
Note that the article didn't pronounce on the value of gridlock. It merely notes its prevalence and the disposition of the critics. It's hard to argue it isn't a feature of our system, as with most Presidential systems.
So, which is it? The economy, or the liberty? There are many countries which espouse inalienable rights and also have large and powerful economies.
When Putin's puppet in Ukraine proved intolerable to the People of that country, they threw him out, suspended their constitution, and held new elections. France has had so many republics and empires that they just number them. It's currently the Fifth French Republic, one of the more stable ones. You could argue that we are in the second or even third American republic, each illegal under the terms of the last, this one extremely long-lived as presidential republics go, but not immune to being overthrown and replaced as it suits the needs. We are a republic. The Constitution is the supreme law, but the People are sovereign.
The most popular country for immigration is Saudi Arabia, for what that's worth.
https://priceonomics.com/which-countries-have-the-most-immigrants/
It's certainly true that I can't just get the Senate to change the rules. I probably wouldn't even start in the Senate.
In particular, every other Presidential republic either never used such a thing as an electoral college, or they gave it up long ago, because it's undemocratic.
I think you'll find that opinions differ on whether it works. Did it 'work' when it permitted humans to be bought and sold as property? Or when a President decided that the natives were less valuable than their land? But I'm telling you now, with this election, it's broken down badly, and it may not be possible to save. It will require bipartisan effort in defiance of the recent trend.