>Now you're lying about what I said was a dishonest debate tactic. no, you're just an idiot.
>You do it, only when you have no other options. when is that for healthcare? if a doctor refuses to give you healthcare and you think it is a right, then what? other rights do not force others to do something.
>your arguments are filled with fallacies so I don't expect honest debate from you anymore. Like "millions of people dissagree with you" (appeal to popularity fallacy, and what's worse - it's complete bullshit.
you're an idiot. I wasn't saying "millions of people think X therefore X is right" (the actual fallacy). I said, "there are literally millions of people that disagree with you". Is that a false statement? I am saying that millions of people do not want your version of health care and if you can't convince them you will never get federal acceptance. Oh, look no one agrees on what the federal government should do for healthcare, even the GOP. Which goes back to when I said: Why should the federal government do it? The only time the feds should do it is if it is universally accepted by the states. It is not. So why are you trying to force people to accept it as you say; "because it is something that EVERYBODY has a right to," even if they disagree with you. The states can do any healthcare system they want. WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF NO ONE AGREES YOU DOLT.
>people are seeing what "repeal" really means for themselves - there's damn near nobody left who agrees if people can't agree the government shouldn't do anything. inaction is feature not bug.
It's no strawman. It's no dishonest "debate tactic". There is no leading question. It's an honest and hard question because other rights have had and continue to have a cost in blood. If you think it is a right then that means it is worth dying for. It means it is worth going to war for. Ask the same question for a different right and see the difference. Is the right of free speech, free assembly worth dying/killing for? Is the right of arms worth dying/killing for? Is Habeas Corpus worth dying for? For many Americans the answer is a simple, yes. No bullshit. No accusations of "leading question" or "dishonest debate" because the moment we forget what rights cost to get and keep the more that we will pay that price. Ask me those questions and I will give you an honest answer.
The difference between those in the BoR and your "right of healthcare" is that nearly all of the ones in the BoR do not FORCE another person to do something. Do you understand the difference and why I do not see it as a right?
Even an A.C saw your answer as bullshit by asking how are you different with your "justifiable homicide" than an abortion clinic bomber? They use your same motivation and justification.
Yes, violence is always a last resort but when is it a last resort for your right of healthcare? A contrived Hollywood example that doesn't address it is not an answer. If he had access but would bankrupt him is that the last resort? But eve then it becomes cost and how best to manage cost. Who has the right answer to cost in healthcare system that is universally accepted? Name a solution and I will give you a reason why it can't work and the average voter is in the same quandary. It is very much different than "from my cold dead hands".
Yes. I saw that movie. was meh and if memory serves he never intended to kill anyone.
Killing to save lives is justifiable homocide.
Who exactly are you killing and for what? Cuba and North Korea have universal healthcare... is that what you going to kill for? There are literally millions in the US that disagree with you... are they who you are going to kill? Is that what you call "justifiable homocide"?
You know, this thread started with a snarky comment about a "benevolent dictator" and yet you have the same rhetoric and justifications for the "greater good" as any mass murdering genocidal maniac. Each one justified murder because of race, classism or whatever burning passion/fad that rallied enough cylons to carry out "what ever was necessary". The ends do not justify the means.
Are you going to show me where he says; "I want a Muslim American database"? Also, how is that different than wanting a gun owner database?
>Try a little more variety in your news diet.
I get enough to know that CNN, NBC, FOX, WSJ, NYTIMES, MSNBC, washington post all pump out fake news. I'll glean the facts and ignore the narrative crafting.
Also, i am curious from an ideologue, would you kill/die for the right of healthcare?
>DUTY to be responsible for the general welfare of the citizens. "promote the general welfare of the united states", not the citizens... the citizens welfare is the job of the state.
>Healthcare is a basic human right can you force a doctor at gun point to give you health care? Are you willing to die for that right?
>because it is something that EVERYBODY has a right to, or that would be harmful if anybody was deprived it. are you going to force people to do something they don't want because you know better? How are you not a benevolent dictator?
>1) Yes - refugees once accepted are full citizens. emphasis added. before accepted they are not. stop being disingenuous.
> yes he was talking about citizens every time i looked at what he said he was talking about refugees and immigrants. source please.
>if their seatbelts don't work and kill people you didn't hear the same thing I did if you think it was about faulty manufacturing. it was about punishing gun manufacturers for how their product was used not how faulty it was.
>They had a constitutional DUTY to advise and consent and they refused to perform their duty. they gave advice and refused consent... their duty is to their constituents and the constitution which did not limit their actions on appointments nor does it prescribe how the Senate advises and consents nor does it force 9 judges to the supreme court.
>States rights have, historically, almost NEVER been invoked except to justify an atrocity And the federal government has never done anything wrong? power corrupts and state rights are a check and balance to federal power. do you judge history with modern morals?
>me PRAISING a republican Yes, praise a republican so long as they do what you want. I don't care how you justify your derangement or delusion. You are a bitter ideologue.
It's for the States to decide if they are like Maine and Nebraska. I don't think it should be federally mandated because I think the elections are a purely state matter that should be subject to state law.
> She made it clear that she would reward corruption on her behalf Example please ? You do KNOW that pizzagate never happened right ?
she only adopted those liberal policies because HIS success proved that a huge swath of the democrat voters WANT those policies.
What's the difference if voters want stronger immigration enforcement and a politician adopting that platform?
Spending more money on what is already the most overspent military
I can agree but also recognize that between national healthcare and stronger defense, the constitution gives the federal government to do only one. You wouldn't have so much opposition if the way any national initiative be handled is by the proper amendment process. States have the right to implement any healthcare system they want. The argument really is; why should the federal government do it? Just like education. NY is doing free college, good on them because they are not forcing Nevadans to pay for it.
The proposed Muslim registry DEFINITELY would abolish a constitutional right
Are Syrian refugees American citizens? Are Somli immigrants American citizens? Are Yemini refugees American citizens? You are being disingenuous.
What Clinton DID say she stood for was common sense, intelligent gun regulations that NO responsible, legal gun owner could possibly be affected by
Except not. Like punishing gun manufactures for how their products are used. That's like saying a reasonable anti-DUI law is fining the car manufacturer for when you drink, drive, and get into accident. That is not common sense, intelligent or responsible.
And has any president EVER not done that ?
Yes, it has been done before but there is a trend to achieve political goals through the courtroom when you can't win elections. That is bad. The best you can hope for is no political appointment or goal and only judicial merit.
But sorry, the right has lost all right to talk about judicial appointments for all time because they pulled the ultimate piece of political fuckery to give Garldand's seat to Gorsuch
They played the political game on a gambit. They won. Nothing was given nor stolen. They risked a more liberal judge if Clinton had won (or just Garland). That is politics and it was within the rights of the Senate.
for that EVERY republican in the senate deserves the death penalty b
Ok, I see I have wasted my time. You are a deranged and delusional ideologue on par with antifa and BAMN. The ends do not justify the means. Fuck off.
Because in a democracy the smartest doesn't always win. Democracy is bad but it is better than a benevolent (and smart) dictator. Any system of democratic governance should have checks and balances for idiots in government.
Yes, I am a dolt in politics just like everyone else who has an opinion. I do not abstain from making my political opinion known because there are dolts I disagree with. I hope there are dolts that are rational that hear the arguments and vote to their best interests. I hope that dolts voting in their best interest after hearing the arguments of both sides will be the best way for governing and democracy.
There is a lot in your comment so I only want to respond a few points and in no particular order.
forcing the E.C. electors to follow the popular vote in their STATES
The States decide how electors vote and how their votes are distributed. Main and Nebraska(?) split their electors on congressional district lines as opposed to winner take all like most States. As it is now, what you and Lessig describe is exactly what we have right now. The Electors are following the popular vote in their States. That is what Trump won a majority of state elections and lost by huge margins in a few. Any issue of Gerrymandering is on the states to change. The whole idea was little experiments in democracy. Which is the best solution? I don't think you, Lessig, I or anyone knows exactly unless we do it for real because that is the nature of politics and governing (as time has marched forward we have more examples of things working or not working). As it stands now, there isn't much difference between the states because the states rights have been lost.
And really, we are only talking about one position in the Executive (albeit most powerful). All the elections should be handled by the states to determine what is best for them. Your solutions and ideas really should be arguments for the states to implement and not the federal. As it stands now the only national executive election is handled by the E.C. and that system by itself is a good system IMO. There is plenty that the states can do to control/divide their electors to represent their people how they want. The distribution of Electors is to ensure the Executive has the interests of smaller states in mind.
she did not represent the threat of a demagogue
I disagree but I also said "or corruption". She demonized half the electorate. She chastised the Bernie supporters. She played into peoples fears and prejudices to get them to support her. She made it clear that she would reward corruption on her behalf. She played into the desire the same way Sanders did by promising everything they wanted. It may have been different desires, fears, and prejudices than what Trump played into but it was still the same text book definition of demagogue: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.". That applies to both Trump and Clinton. Different desires and prejudices doesn't change what a demagogue is. You can argue the rational of both and whether that meets your definition of "rational argument" but neither looked rational to me.
she did not spend her time on the campaign trail promising to frankly abolish constitutional rights for huge swaths of Americans (though she was accused of that in one instance "taking your guns" it wasn't true and there has never been any truth to that accusation - personally I wish there was but there wasn't).
Trump did not campaign on the abolishment of constitutional rights for any American citizen. Refugees are not citizens and are granted entry at the governments pleasure. Illegal immigrants are not citizens and do not have the same rights. The Muslim registry was for immigrants/refugees not American citizens. This my problem with the left and the anti-Trump rhetoric. They are very disingenuous and misconstrue the facts to be what they want to see.
Clinton was very anti-gun, did you not see the primaries? Even Sanders had a rational and compromising position for guns. Clinton was very hostile to that right and made it clear that she would appoint judges for the sole purpose of dismantling that right. One of the checks and balances you say still exist was under threat from Clinton by making appointments based on political ends not judicial merit. She had rhetoric on the campaign to take this right away. If anyone was promising to abolish constitutional rights for huge swaths of Americans it was Clinton. If you want to abolish the right of guns then do it the proper way through the amendment process and not bypass it through judicial political appointments that Clinton promised.
I agree with you on the benevolent dictator. Who was it that said democracy is bad but it is the best we have come up with? Something like that. I think in times when there are obvious stupid people running the nation/world a benevolent dictator sounds just a little bit better even if it is not.
However on the Electoral College I disagree with you (or at least partially). It was a no win situation this last election. The same argument of demagoguery or corruption could be applied to Clinton if she had won. If the college were to not elect Trump they couldn't elect (or at the very least shouldn't) elect Clinton either as she was a poisoned pill at that point. What is the right choice when given that? Obviously Clinton lost the election regardless of national popular vote (no such thing) and Trump won a majority of states. If you choose the loser over the winner that is asking for bad blood. The E.C. choosing the winner is democracy in action, again 50 different popular elections had a majority going to Trump. If there were a third choice it wasn't obvious to the Electors.
If one president can ruin the nation then the president is too powerful. If the Executive has too much power to do too much damage it is too powerful. That is one of the checks and balances that has been lost. Congress has the power and for too long they ceded that power to the Executive from the States. The Electoral College isn't the issue, we are a union of states not a mob and the E.C. ensures the Executive has the interests of a majority of states in mind. The problem is many of the checks and balances has been the lost like a loss of states rights and Congressional laziness. Ironically, blue states are starting to remember that with Trump so maybe Trump can still do something good even if it isn't him doing it (many of the suits against his executive orders are on the grounds of states rights).
It's more than half. The majority of humans are idiots. Which,thinking about it, could be a filter to Fermi's Paradox. As civilization advances it must reconcile higher concentrations of energy and power in larger segments of the population including the underbelly and idiots.
You can be smart in one thing and an absolute dolt in another. Politics in democracy forces us to make decisions even though we are a laymen and a dolt for such topics. Maybe the benevolent dictator is better.
Interesting. Honestly, you are the first that I have met that has expressed this. I could understand an excessive amount of usage but... one "lol" doesn't count as excessive (at least for me). It is how I use the internet since I first went online. It's just a way of chatting like an accent IRL.
I guess, we could chalk it up to "damn kids and their rock n roll" or "get off my lawn" as I am sure I am probably younger than you. Well good sir, I am firmly off your lawn. ^_^
No no. You don't understand. We have to stop Trump and the Russians By Any Means Necessary. If the NSA need more power to stop Trump and others like him then we need to acquiesce their to their demands for the greater good. Rights be damned./s
I was laughing and it was at you. I don't have to express it in any way other way. That is how I have always expressed it online. Why would I change it for you when you make me laugh?
You're putting words in my mouth. I only said idiots shouldn't be president.
Whats the difference in practice? Define idiot. Then convince enough of the electorate that the definition is good. Then Convince the people that voted for Trump that Trump fits that definition. I am willing to bet you can't and it would never happen. Looks like Trump would still be president even if you had some arbitrary "no idiots" that didn't mean "only elites".... lol
Does it matter if it came from a jew trying to get you mad? Is it really efficient for a Nazi to post a green frog to promote their brand of racism? I don't understand how someone posting literal satire that makes fun the medias lack of investigation promotes racism. If you were a serious racist/Nazi... Would you really appreciate your ideology/movement being made the butt of a joke?
"half the electorate" isn't irrelevant. "winning the popular vote" is irrelevant. Sure, I could have made it more accurate by saying "about" but I didn't think any point would be made by such pedantics.
I honestly don't care what Trump says on Twitter.
Your statement on the Senate is unclear but implies that you're not aware senators are elected by popular vote, not by an electoral college.
The point of the Senate, as distinct from the House, is to give each state equal representation in a legislative body. Montana has the same "power" as California despite the huge population differences. The House, gives proportional representation to a legislative body. Montana doesn't get much say compared to California. The Electoral College is a mix between equal representation and proportional representation to ensure the Executive has the needs of a majority of states in mind.
If you read some of the Federalist Papers on the Senate and Electoral College one thing that is interesting is that the compromise they came up with (and ratified in the Constitution) was between small states (rural) and large states (urban). Today, those groups have the greatest differences in needs and wants from their politicians and government. The Executive, being made up from a diverse union must balance their focus between these two dominate opposing groups to ensure stability in the union. You cannot have the government ignore one of these groups for very long without causing anger and unrest.
tend to be rather intelligent and their humor is often quite smart
When they become smug preachy self satisfied ass holes they aren't funny. The only people that find them funny are other smug preachy self satisfied ass holes that think exactly like them. That isn't smart humor that is group think being condescending toward others that think differently.
Samantha Bee isn't funny. Nor is John Oliver. Nor is Larry Wilmore.
That is irrelevant. The US is a union of states not a mob. Do you think the Senate is a good Idea for a bicameral Congress? Why would that idea not be good for a different branch of government? The whole point is to ensure that the Executive has the interests of a majority of states. There is no national vote. There are 50 different independent elections that Clinton lost a majority. Yes, she won by large margins in a few states but that shouldn't be enough to alienate the other states like Obama did with the 'fly-over' states.
Slashdot Mirror
>Now you're lying about what I said was a dishonest debate tactic.
no, you're just an idiot.
>You do it, only when you have no other options.
when is that for healthcare? if a doctor refuses to give you healthcare and you think it is a right, then what? other rights do not force others to do something.
>your arguments are filled with fallacies so I don't expect honest debate from you anymore. Like "millions of people dissagree with you" (appeal to popularity fallacy, and what's worse - it's complete bullshit.
you're an idiot. I wasn't saying "millions of people think X therefore X is right" (the actual fallacy). I said, "there are literally millions of people that disagree with you". Is that a false statement? I am saying that millions of people do not want your version of health care and if you can't convince them you will never get federal acceptance. Oh, look no one agrees on what the federal government should do for healthcare, even the GOP. Which goes back to when I said: Why should the federal government do it? The only time the feds should do it is if it is universally accepted by the states. It is not. So why are you trying to force people to accept it as you say; "because it is something that EVERYBODY has a right to," even if they disagree with you. The states can do any healthcare system they want. WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF NO ONE AGREES YOU DOLT.
>people are seeing what "repeal" really means for themselves - there's damn near nobody left who agrees
if people can't agree the government shouldn't do anything. inaction is feature not bug.
It's no strawman. It's no dishonest "debate tactic". There is no leading question. It's an honest and hard question because other rights have had and continue to have a cost in blood. If you think it is a right then that means it is worth dying for. It means it is worth going to war for. Ask the same question for a different right and see the difference. Is the right of free speech, free assembly worth dying/killing for? Is the right of arms worth dying/killing for? Is Habeas Corpus worth dying for? For many Americans the answer is a simple, yes. No bullshit. No accusations of "leading question" or "dishonest debate" because the moment we forget what rights cost to get and keep the more that we will pay that price. Ask me those questions and I will give you an honest answer.
The difference between those in the BoR and your "right of healthcare" is that nearly all of the ones in the BoR do not FORCE another person to do something. Do you understand the difference and why I do not see it as a right?
Even an A.C saw your answer as bullshit by asking how are you different with your "justifiable homicide" than an abortion clinic bomber? They use your same motivation and justification.
Yes, violence is always a last resort but when is it a last resort for your right of healthcare? A contrived Hollywood example that doesn't address it is not an answer. If he had access but would bankrupt him is that the last resort? But eve then it becomes cost and how best to manage cost. Who has the right answer to cost in healthcare system that is universally accepted? Name a solution and I will give you a reason why it can't work and the average voter is in the same quandary. It is very much different than "from my cold dead hands".
Also, you think Cuba healthcare is great? Interesting. I have heard conflicting opinions.
Yes. I saw that movie. was meh and if memory serves he never intended to kill anyone.
Killing to save lives is justifiable homocide.
Who exactly are you killing and for what? Cuba and North Korea have universal healthcare... is that what you going to kill for? There are literally millions in the US that disagree with you... are they who you are going to kill? Is that what you call "justifiable homocide"?
You know, this thread started with a snarky comment about a "benevolent dictator" and yet you have the same rhetoric and justifications for the "greater good" as any mass murdering genocidal maniac. Each one justified murder because of race, classism or whatever burning passion/fad that rallied enough cylons to carry out "what ever was necessary". The ends do not justify the means.
Again, every thing I have seen say you are being disingenuous. The position seems to have changed over time. Go figure.
From the first 2 links.
https://www.google.com/#q=trum...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Are you going to show me where he says; "I want a Muslim American database"? Also, how is that different than wanting a gun owner database?
>Try a little more variety in your news diet.
I get enough to know that CNN, NBC, FOX, WSJ, NYTIMES, MSNBC, washington post all pump out fake news. I'll glean the facts and ignore the narrative crafting.
Also, i am curious from an ideologue, would you kill/die for the right of healthcare?
>DUTY to be responsible for the general welfare of the citizens.
"promote the general welfare of the united states", not the citizens... the citizens welfare is the job of the state.
>Healthcare is a basic human right
can you force a doctor at gun point to give you health care? Are you willing to die for that right?
>because it is something that EVERYBODY has a right to, or that would be harmful if anybody was deprived it.
are you going to force people to do something they don't want because you know better? How are you not a benevolent dictator?
>1) Yes - refugees once accepted are full citizens.
emphasis added. before accepted they are not. stop being disingenuous.
> yes he was talking about citizens
every time i looked at what he said he was talking about refugees and immigrants. source please.
>if their seatbelts don't work and kill people
you didn't hear the same thing I did if you think it was about faulty manufacturing. it was about punishing gun manufacturers for how their product was used not how faulty it was.
>They had a constitutional DUTY to advise and consent and they refused to perform their duty.
they gave advice and refused consent... their duty is to their constituents and the constitution which did not limit their actions on appointments nor does it prescribe how the Senate advises and consents nor does it force 9 judges to the supreme court.
>States rights have, historically, almost NEVER been invoked except to justify an atrocity
And the federal government has never done anything wrong? power corrupts and state rights are a check and balance to federal power. do you judge history with modern morals?
>me PRAISING a republican
Yes, praise a republican so long as they do what you want. I don't care how you justify your derangement or delusion. You are a bitter ideologue.
It's for the States to decide if they are like Maine and Nebraska. I don't think it should be federally mandated because I think the elections are a purely state matter that should be subject to state law.
> She made it clear that she would reward corruption on her behalf
Example please ? You do KNOW that pizzagate never happened right ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
she only adopted those liberal policies because HIS success proved that a huge swath of the democrat voters WANT those policies.
What's the difference if voters want stronger immigration enforcement and a politician adopting that platform?
Spending more money on what is already the most overspent military
I can agree but also recognize that between national healthcare and stronger defense, the constitution gives the federal government to do only one. You wouldn't have so much opposition if the way any national initiative be handled is by the proper amendment process. States have the right to implement any healthcare system they want. The argument really is; why should the federal government do it? Just like education. NY is doing free college, good on them because they are not forcing Nevadans to pay for it.
The proposed Muslim registry DEFINITELY would abolish a constitutional right
Are Syrian refugees American citizens? Are Somli immigrants American citizens? Are Yemini refugees American citizens? You are being disingenuous.
What Clinton DID say she stood for was common sense, intelligent gun regulations that NO responsible, legal gun owner could possibly be affected by
Except not. Like punishing gun manufactures for how their products are used. That's like saying a reasonable anti-DUI law is fining the car manufacturer for when you drink, drive, and get into accident. That is not common sense, intelligent or responsible.
And has any president EVER not done that ?
Yes, it has been done before but there is a trend to achieve political goals through the courtroom when you can't win elections. That is bad. The best you can hope for is no political appointment or goal and only judicial merit.
But sorry, the right has lost all right to talk about judicial appointments for all time because they pulled the ultimate piece of political fuckery to give Garldand's seat to Gorsuch
They played the political game on a gambit. They won. Nothing was given nor stolen. They risked a more liberal judge if Clinton had won (or just Garland). That is politics and it was within the rights of the Senate.
for that EVERY republican in the senate deserves the death penalty b
Ok, I see I have wasted my time. You are a deranged and delusional ideologue on par with antifa and BAMN. The ends do not justify the means. Fuck off.
Because in a democracy the smartest doesn't always win. Democracy is bad but it is better than a benevolent (and smart) dictator. Any system of democratic governance should have checks and balances for idiots in government.
Sometimes, good and smart people are elected.
Yes, I am a dolt in politics just like everyone else who has an opinion. I do not abstain from making my political opinion known because there are dolts I disagree with. I hope there are dolts that are rational that hear the arguments and vote to their best interests. I hope that dolts voting in their best interest after hearing the arguments of both sides will be the best way for governing and democracy.
There is a lot in your comment so I only want to respond a few points and in no particular order.
forcing the E.C. electors to follow the popular vote in their STATES
The States decide how electors vote and how their votes are distributed. Main and Nebraska(?) split their electors on congressional district lines as opposed to winner take all like most States. As it is now, what you and Lessig describe is exactly what we have right now. The Electors are following the popular vote in their States. That is what Trump won a majority of state elections and lost by huge margins in a few. Any issue of Gerrymandering is on the states to change. The whole idea was little experiments in democracy. Which is the best solution? I don't think you, Lessig, I or anyone knows exactly unless we do it for real because that is the nature of politics and governing (as time has marched forward we have more examples of things working or not working). As it stands now, there isn't much difference between the states because the states rights have been lost.
And really, we are only talking about one position in the Executive (albeit most powerful). All the elections should be handled by the states to determine what is best for them. Your solutions and ideas really should be arguments for the states to implement and not the federal. As it stands now the only national executive election is handled by the E.C. and that system by itself is a good system IMO. There is plenty that the states can do to control/divide their electors to represent their people how they want. The distribution of Electors is to ensure the Executive has the interests of smaller states in mind.
she did not represent the threat of a demagogue
I disagree but I also said "or corruption". She demonized half the electorate. She chastised the Bernie supporters. She played into peoples fears and prejudices to get them to support her. She made it clear that she would reward corruption on her behalf. She played into the desire the same way Sanders did by promising everything they wanted. It may have been different desires, fears, and prejudices than what Trump played into but it was still the same text book definition of demagogue: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.". That applies to both Trump and Clinton. Different desires and prejudices doesn't change what a demagogue is. You can argue the rational of both and whether that meets your definition of "rational argument" but neither looked rational to me.
she did not spend her time on the campaign trail promising to frankly abolish constitutional rights for huge swaths of Americans (though she was accused of that in one instance "taking your guns" it wasn't true and there has never been any truth to that accusation - personally I wish there was but there wasn't).
Trump did not campaign on the abolishment of constitutional rights for any American citizen. Refugees are not citizens and are granted entry at the governments pleasure. Illegal immigrants are not citizens and do not have the same rights. The Muslim registry was for immigrants/refugees not American citizens. This my problem with the left and the anti-Trump rhetoric. They are very disingenuous and misconstrue the facts to be what they want to see.
Clinton was very anti-gun, did you not see the primaries? Even Sanders had a rational and compromising position for guns. Clinton was very hostile to that right and made it clear that she would appoint judges for the sole purpose of dismantling that right. One of the checks and balances you say still exist was under threat from Clinton by making appointments based on political ends not judicial merit. She had rhetoric on the campaign to take this right away. If anyone was promising to abolish constitutional rights for huge swaths of Americans it was Clinton. If you want to abolish the right of guns then do it the proper way through the amendment process and not bypass it through judicial political appointments that Clinton promised.
I agree with you on the benevolent dictator. Who was it that said democracy is bad but it is the best we have come up with? Something like that. I think in times when there are obvious stupid people running the nation/world a benevolent dictator sounds just a little bit better even if it is not.
However on the Electoral College I disagree with you (or at least partially). It was a no win situation this last election. The same argument of demagoguery or corruption could be applied to Clinton if she had won. If the college were to not elect Trump they couldn't elect (or at the very least shouldn't) elect Clinton either as she was a poisoned pill at that point. What is the right choice when given that? Obviously Clinton lost the election regardless of national popular vote (no such thing) and Trump won a majority of states. If you choose the loser over the winner that is asking for bad blood. The E.C. choosing the winner is democracy in action, again 50 different popular elections had a majority going to Trump. If there were a third choice it wasn't obvious to the Electors.
If one president can ruin the nation then the president is too powerful. If the Executive has too much power to do too much damage it is too powerful. That is one of the checks and balances that has been lost. Congress has the power and for too long they ceded that power to the Executive from the States. The Electoral College isn't the issue, we are a union of states not a mob and the E.C. ensures the Executive has the interests of a majority of states in mind. The problem is many of the checks and balances has been the lost like a loss of states rights and Congressional laziness. Ironically, blue states are starting to remember that with Trump so maybe Trump can still do something good even if it isn't him doing it (many of the suits against his executive orders are on the grounds of states rights).
It's more than half. The majority of humans are idiots. Which ,thinking about it, could be a filter to Fermi's Paradox. As civilization advances it must reconcile higher concentrations of energy and power in larger segments of the population including the underbelly and idiots.
You can be smart in one thing and an absolute dolt in another. Politics in democracy forces us to make decisions even though we are a laymen and a dolt for such topics. Maybe the benevolent dictator is better.
To each their own.
Interesting. Honestly, you are the first that I have met that has expressed this. I could understand an excessive amount of usage but... one "lol" doesn't count as excessive (at least for me). It is how I use the internet since I first went online. It's just a way of chatting like an accent IRL.
I guess, we could chalk it up to "damn kids and their rock n roll" or "get off my lawn" as I am sure I am probably younger than you. Well good sir, I am firmly off your lawn. ^_^
No no. You don't understand. We have to stop Trump and the Russians By Any Means Necessary. If the NSA need more power to stop Trump and others like him then we need to acquiesce their to their demands for the greater good. Rights be damned. /s
I was laughing and it was at you. I don't have to express it in any way other way. That is how I have always expressed it online. Why would I change it for you when you make me laugh?
You're putting words in my mouth. I only said idiots shouldn't be president.
Whats the difference in practice? Define idiot. Then convince enough of the electorate that the definition is good. Then Convince the people that voted for Trump that Trump fits that definition. I am willing to bet you can't and it would never happen. Looks like Trump would still be president even if you had some arbitrary "no idiots" that didn't mean "only elites".... lol
Does it matter if it came from a jew trying to get you mad? Is it really efficient for a Nazi to post a green frog to promote their brand of racism? I don't understand how someone posting literal satire that makes fun the medias lack of investigation promotes racism. If you were a serious racist/Nazi... Would you really appreciate your ideology/movement being made the butt of a joke?
Um, it really can be explained by "reaction pics". Pepe is a template for reaction and memes.
An eagle is not racist for being a part of nazi imagery. Intent and Context matter.
Meh, any time I have tried to watch them I get annoyed and feel as though I am wasting my time. Not funny to me.
I don't like smug preachy ass holes even if I agree with them. And there are plenty like that that I refuse to listen because of that smug preachy,
world is full of lessons to be learned and things can always get much worse.
Sure, but between the two I didn't see much difference.
"half the electorate" isn't irrelevant. "winning the popular vote" is irrelevant. Sure, I could have made it more accurate by saying "about" but I didn't think any point would be made by such pedantics.
I honestly don't care what Trump says on Twitter.
Your statement on the Senate is unclear but implies that you're not aware senators are elected by popular vote, not by an electoral college.
The point of the Senate, as distinct from the House, is to give each state equal representation in a legislative body. Montana has the same "power" as California despite the huge population differences. The House, gives proportional representation to a legislative body. Montana doesn't get much say compared to California. The Electoral College is a mix between equal representation and proportional representation to ensure the Executive has the needs of a majority of states in mind.
If you read some of the Federalist Papers on the Senate and Electoral College one thing that is interesting is that the compromise they came up with (and ratified in the Constitution) was between small states (rural) and large states (urban). Today, those groups have the greatest differences in needs and wants from their politicians and government. The Executive, being made up from a diverse union must balance their focus between these two dominate opposing groups to ensure stability in the union. You cannot have the government ignore one of these groups for very long without causing anger and unrest.
tend to be rather intelligent and their humor is often quite smart
When they become smug preachy self satisfied ass holes they aren't funny. The only people that find them funny are other smug preachy self satisfied ass holes that think exactly like them. That isn't smart humor that is group think being condescending toward others that think differently.
Samantha Bee isn't funny. Nor is John Oliver. Nor is Larry Wilmore.
That is irrelevant. The US is a union of states not a mob. Do you think the Senate is a good Idea for a bicameral Congress? Why would that idea not be good for a different branch of government? The whole point is to ensure that the Executive has the interests of a majority of states. There is no national vote. There are 50 different independent elections that Clinton lost a majority. Yes, she won by large margins in a few states but that shouldn't be enough to alienate the other states like Obama did with the 'fly-over' states.
So, what you are telling me is that Pepe is really just the Green Jesus of the internet?
Dare I say... feelsgoodman?