Are you sure you are talking about Trump or the cry babies rioting ?
making the country & countrymen much less safe on the worlds platform as it exists today.
You can argue how effective the travel ban is/will be after time has passed to see the effects. What happened in 2011 when Obama did it? The whole point of the pause is to reassess the process to make sure we aren't letting in the bad ones like what has happened in Europe. Why is it that bad? In what way is that anything near nefarious and crappy as you and others make it out to be?
I never said anything about cause. Just like the parent "statistically disadvantage". There are decisions you can make that can, statistically, ensure that you are not economically disadvantaged.
"They are also more statistically likely to be criminals and murderers. And you know what? Both risk being shot by the police. It happen to white people too."
The response being: "they remain an economically disadvantaged group. "
IOW, Economically disadvantaged group correlates to criminality which correlates to being shot by the police. Fine, but why is it fallacious to say: "Do those 3 things correlates to not being economically disadvantaged which correlates to not being criminal which correlates to not being shot by police" ?
The only difference is that the onus is put on the individual and it is a negation of being shot by police. The individual chooses to not finish high school, get a job, or have kids out of wedlock which correlates to poor economic conditions. If we believe the GP post that that correlates to criminality.
No one is saying blacks are predisposed to criminality but the poster is saying that economically disadvantage are. What is wrong with putting the onus on the individual when there are individual decisions that can be made to statistically lower your chances of being economically disadvantaged?
Yes, that is why there is the qualifier "statistically". Saying blacks are economically disadvantage because statistics does not give you the full story when there are successful blacks (one was the most powerful man in the world). If there are markers for being economically successful (as in not poor/poverty) and those are not being applied by a group in the 70% range; why is it acceptable to say " they are economically disadvantage as a group" when those markers for success are based on individual choices? Why is it not framed as individuals making poor decisions and should be held responsible for those decisions?
Sure, but he is from a western democratic nation and should understand basic civics. I don't know how you can support the ideals of democracy and be so angry that "your" side lost in the elections that you justify violence to the opposition. I would also him to understand that local governments are more receptive and responsive to local changes and popular opinion than the federal government.
When are individuals held responsible for their actions? I see many successful blacks in America one was the most powerful man on the planet. Statistics can highlight certain things but it can't tell you the why or how.
Statistically, if you don't want to be poor do 3 things: 1) graduate high school 2) get a full time job 3) get married before you have kids
Why is this advice falling on deaf ears? #3, probably the most important, is only about the choices you make and the black community has a problem with single parent house holds. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...
I am sorry but at some point your actions have consequences. It isn't the white man or the police that are making poor decisions that are markers for poor economic outcomes. How much time must pass for the individual to be judged by their own actions without using statistics to dismiss their responsibility?
Banning these people from Reddit only means that progressives will be even more out of touch with mainstream America than they already are.
Well said. Even Obama made a similar sentiment and yet there hasn't been much introspection on the part of the left. Double down and isolate themselves has been the course.
I keep thinking that eventually the crazy will just scream itself out or the rhetoric will hit a point where no sane person would continue a fallacious, hypocritical, and dangerous position... For example "it's ok to punch a nazi". Yet, satire has become reality. I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
Are you really upset that democracy has outcomes you don't like?? Good god man. Gorsuch said it best the night he was nominated: "if you are happy with every decision you make as a judge your are not a good judge.". Only tyrants get everything they want because they never give the opposition a chance. Obstruction is legal and is a part of our government because the government is built on compromise and if you can't compromise then you don't get your way. Why are you upset that people's elected representatives are doing what they said they would do!?!?!? People elected the GOP in the senate to obstruct and you are upset that they fulfilled their promise? Why do you not like democracy? Why does the idea that someone disagrees with you make it ok to justify and advocate violence? The lack of self awareness and hypocrisy is astronomical.
If you don't like Winner Take All system. Petition your state government! You know, that government that is closer to you that you have more control over. You know, the thing that actually controls HOW elections are held. Don't bitch about other states when you are too fucking lazy to do anything about your own.
Yes, because Paris doesn't exist in Texas. Moscow doesn't exist in Idaho. London doesn't exist in Kentucky.
I used to think the same as you do i.e. American education is dumb because Americans don't know where Paris is! Until I realized that major city names are common across the US. When you say "I am from Paris" and the response being "Where is that".. It doesn't mean they don't know about Paris France but are wondering what local city in the state or neighboring state you are talking about.
The winner take all system is up to the states. That is why Maine and one other state (Nebraska? I don't remember) had split their electoral vote between both candidates. If you want to do away with that then you need to petition your state government. It is not a problem with the Electoral College.
As far as dual-party, no matter how you break up the electorate or legislature every issues becomes a binary thing. Vote yes or vote no. The major parties in the US also are not universally the same even if they have the same party. For example; a Democrat in Idaho is going to be very conservative compared to a democrat in California even if they vote for the same President and have a few common issues. Sure, it's an issue because no system will be perfect because it will be ran by humans trying to organize a change in the government. That isn't even going into the different factions inside each party (Libertarian Ron Paul Republicans or classical liberal democrats that believe in strong gun rights)
Compromise is always extremely difficult no matter how the legislature or elections are organized. That does not mean that we should implement policy rhetoric to undermine compromise. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree, nothing should happen until they can. That is a feature not a bug.
Funny thing about voting; It's private and anonymous. Anonymity is milk this nation grew on and the shield that protects it's heart. Too bad cowards like you give it a bad name.
If assumptions are all you can do; you had better just not respond. It's embarrassing.
Clinton article approvals and review before publication, giving debate questions, flying around on the same flight, corporate owners donating millions to campaign, running obvious biased articles in favour of clinton. The list goes on.... She didn't have to say shut up because they were in bed. Did you miss all of this during the election or are you really this stupid? Why do you think people called CNN the Clinton News Network? Hint: They toed the party line through collusion and favoritism that undermined any sense of journalistic integrity. Why do you think that kind of relationship would be result in impartiality and integrity now?
just echo the party line. That's right, you can't. But that's what every press conference under our beloved new fuehrer is
Hm, really? Is CNN toeing the party line? Are there other media outlets not toeing the party line? I saw the press conferences and I saw the government and a few media organizations at odds. So what? Why should I care that Trump doesn't like CNN because they proven themselves to be devoid of integrity?
either you are cheering his godlike brilliance, or you need to shut up. Welcome to the end of democracy.
LOL, Yes, the God-King giveth and the God-King taketh away. Praise the Keks for our beloved God-King of Keks Trump. The Don G If you think this is the end of democracy... You're and idiot. od himself, that will forever free the Kekistanis in the promised land of Kekistan. Good gravy man you should step away from the internet and smell the roses. Just breathe...
There is nothing more in civics I detest than the "you have an obligation to vote the way I want you to". Fuck you. I have an obligation to vote my conscience. If that means Trump before Clinton then so be it, No one can tell me otherwise and fuck you for thinking such tyranny. I will be damned if some fuckstick like you tells me how I should exercise my rights. My responsibility is to the Constitution and the ideals it enshrines. You are not the first ass hole to tell me to "do what is necessary" and vote for Clinton and that is more dangerous than a President Trump. America is free because I can vote for whoever I want especially when it pisses you off.
Why don't you respect democracy and let citizens be free to make the decision themselves instead casting their vote on your behalf? You do not want democracy if you actually think that way. That is tyrannical bullshit that I will not stand for. Cunt.
It's times like these I am very happy for the 2nd Amendment because of tyrant bitches like you tend toward putting down dissent with violent mob justice. Did you get a paycheck from the Clinton Campaign to riot? Piece of shit.
while Trump is denying basic science, you're not looking at what he's actually doing. It's the magicians trick of distraction.
Would be helpful if the media wasn't in full 'everything he does is literally Hitler' mantra. An argument for voting for him over Clinton was the simple fact that the media doesn't like him and were in bed with Clinton. It is much easier for the electorate to get informed when you have the government and media at odds. Is it really Trump doing the magicians trick or is it the media convinced of their own hyperbole that they lost all perspective? It takes two to tango and they would rather argue about audience sizes than the limits of executive power. I at least expect it from a reality TV show host made president and not the news media outlets.
Gee I wonder which traitor gave Putin the names?
Nice conjecture. It wouldn't have anything to do with the poor cyber security the US has, right? If you have proof that Trump is a traitor fine put up or shut up. Conjecture does nothing for no one.
but you're missing the fact he's written a law here
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
What happened to the calls for him to divest his businesses and stop accepting foreign money? Lost in all the other stuff he's done. What about his tax returns? The fake numbers he gave in the election filing? Forgotten.
Because that was important before the election and now it is an issue for the courts to resolve... WTF is supposed to happen if you allow ANY citizen to be president?
You see how he sets the agenda by doing something really extreme, and what you miss is what he's doing at the same time. Really important stuff like blocking the head of Defence from security meetings, banning the US Director of National Intelligence from security meetings.... i.e. removing Congregational approved roles from basic government, so that Congress doesn't appoint anyone who has any role.
Is it illegal? Does congress allow the president to do this even if previous presidents have not? Sure, it sounds bad but I honestly don't know. I doubt you know either because your post is mostly knee jerk reactions. Bush did something similar with Karl Rove but this is being described as 'unusual'. Unusual != nefarious like you imply. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Your post is mostly FUD and conjecture it is sad it is modded 5 insightful. If you have something substantive provide it.
(Do you realize that only once since 1988 has a Republican candidate actually won the popular vote? That's 6 of the last 7 elections. Talk about evidence of a screwed up election system...)
That means the democrats are doing a horrible job of selling their message to half the states and republicans are hated in the cities. News at 11. There has always been (and probably always will be ) a divide between the country and city. There was compromise between those groups just to even start this nation. I think it shows wisdom that that divide is the primary contention we have at the national level. The populated cities can't rule over the country-side in the Congress or the Executive and the more that democrats think they are mandated to do so because 'muh popular vote' will continue to alienate smaller states in the elections.
A democratic nation must have compromise or else it will fail. The government was structured to accommodate the division and needs between rural and urban states which was contentious even during the Constitutional Convention. One cannot rule over the other and both must agree to have a functioning nation of independent free states.
If you think the Senate is a good idea, why would that idea not be good when applied to a different branch of government?
the press to just turn into Pravda and echo the party line.
Oh, you mean like Clinton? You know, handing over debate questions, getting campaign approval on articles written before publishing, having direct financial ties, an obvious bias that affected the quality of journalism from reporting on the issues like the Wikileaks and said behavior, and the collusion that labeled and posted Trump as the Pied Piper i.e. someone that they thought Clinton could beat because she is that bad.
Isn't it a good thing the media and government being at odds? Let's be clear, if you want a Pravda comparison that would only applicable to the Clinton News Network and the like. The media and government at odds is the exact opposite.
I am baffled that you think it is a 'hypothetical problem' and I think you are incredibly naive if you truly think that.
Federalist papers #10 and #62 are good reads for the weakness of democracy and the reasons for the Senate.
"our government has devolved into party-line voting to such a degree"... Yes, and that is that natural for democracy that we should guard against. Or as Madison put it: " A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. "
Also, the Congress is the reason no new states have been admitted to the union. There is nothing stopping the addition of new states to the union except for the Congress and that territories fulfillment of a Constitutional Republic governance requirement.
Yes, i have read a number of the emails. Others have done a better job at showing what was in there. Like this There are also the emails about the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign. Colluding like who will be the Pied Piper during the Primaries to get the weakest perceived GOP candidate that Clinton could win (guess who that was) against. Or how media outlets would send their articles to get Clinton Stamp of Approval.
DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways
First time I have heard of this but from the response of the DNC, clintons, media, DKIM validation, etc it seems they are legitimate. Why is it no one talks about them being altered if they were and everyone acting like they are legit?
Slashdot Mirror
Mexicans not a race... So, not racist to want a wall protecting from illegal Mexican border jumpers.
Muslim is not a race... So, not racist to want strong immigration policy that protects against the radical elements of the religion.
Thanks. Now we know that strong immigration and border protections are not racist.
he's a retarded screaming shitgibbon
Are you sure you are talking about Trump or the cry babies rioting ?
making the country & countrymen much less safe on the worlds platform as it exists today.
You can argue how effective the travel ban is/will be after time has passed to see the effects. What happened in 2011 when Obama did it? The whole point of the pause is to reassess the process to make sure we aren't letting in the bad ones like what has happened in Europe. Why is it that bad? In what way is that anything near nefarious and crappy as you and others make it out to be?
The only people "united" by this were already against him. He is doing what he promised during his campaign.
How does it destroy credibility by doing what he promised?
I never said anything about cause. Just like the parent "statistically disadvantage". There are decisions you can make that can, statistically, ensure that you are not economically disadvantaged.
"They are also more statistically likely to be criminals and murderers.
And you know what? Both risk being shot by the police. It happen to white people too."
The response being: "they remain an economically disadvantaged group. "
IOW, Economically disadvantaged group correlates to criminality which correlates to being shot by the police. Fine, but why is it fallacious to say: "Do those 3 things correlates to not being economically disadvantaged which correlates to not being criminal which correlates to not being shot by police" ?
The only difference is that the onus is put on the individual and it is a negation of being shot by police. The individual chooses to not finish high school, get a job, or have kids out of wedlock which correlates to poor economic conditions. If we believe the GP post that that correlates to criminality.
No one is saying blacks are predisposed to criminality but the poster is saying that economically disadvantage are. What is wrong with putting the onus on the individual when there are individual decisions that can be made to statistically lower your chances of being economically disadvantaged?
Yes, that is why there is the qualifier "statistically". Saying blacks are economically disadvantage because statistics does not give you the full story when there are successful blacks (one was the most powerful man in the world). If there are markers for being economically successful (as in not poor/poverty) and those are not being applied by a group in the 70% range; why is it acceptable to say " they are economically disadvantage as a group" when those markers for success are based on individual choices? Why is it not framed as individuals making poor decisions and should be held responsible for those decisions?
How are we not? I don't know what your talking about. Could you elaborate some more.
Sure, but he is from a western democratic nation and should understand basic civics. I don't know how you can support the ideals of democracy and be so angry that "your" side lost in the elections that you justify violence to the opposition. I would also him to understand that local governments are more receptive and responsive to local changes and popular opinion than the federal government.
When are individuals held responsible for their actions? I see many successful blacks in America one was the most powerful man on the planet. Statistics can highlight certain things but it can't tell you the why or how.
Statistically, if you don't want to be poor do 3 things:
1) graduate high school
2) get a full time job
3) get married before you have kids
Why is this advice falling on deaf ears? #3, probably the most important, is only about the choices you make and the black community has a problem with single parent house holds. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...
I am sorry but at some point your actions have consequences. It isn't the white man or the police that are making poor decisions that are markers for poor economic outcomes. How much time must pass for the individual to be judged by their own actions without using statistics to dismiss their responsibility?
Banning these people from Reddit only means that progressives will be even more out of touch with mainstream America than they already are.
Well said. Even Obama made a similar sentiment and yet there hasn't been much introspection on the part of the left. Double down and isolate themselves has been the course.
I keep thinking that eventually the crazy will just scream itself out or the rhetoric will hit a point where no sane person would continue a fallacious, hypocritical, and dangerous position... For example "it's ok to punch a nazi". Yet, satire has become reality. I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
Could it be that some people thought that Clinton was worse in part because of the things mentioned by Zak3056?
Could it be that some people think an unknown is not as bad as a known bad?
FFS. Why is there no introspection to be had by the left?
Are you really upset that democracy has outcomes you don't like?? Good god man. Gorsuch said it best the night he was nominated: "if you are happy with every decision you make as a judge your are not a good judge.". Only tyrants get everything they want because they never give the opposition a chance. Obstruction is legal and is a part of our government because the government is built on compromise and if you can't compromise then you don't get your way. Why are you upset that people's elected representatives are doing what they said they would do!?!?!? People elected the GOP in the senate to obstruct and you are upset that they fulfilled their promise? Why do you not like democracy? Why does the idea that someone disagrees with you make it ok to justify and advocate violence? The lack of self awareness and hypocrisy is astronomical.
If you don't like Winner Take All system. Petition your state government! You know, that government that is closer to you that you have more control over. You know, the thing that actually controls HOW elections are held. Don't bitch about other states when you are too fucking lazy to do anything about your own.
Yes, because Paris doesn't exist in Texas. Moscow doesn't exist in Idaho. London doesn't exist in Kentucky.
I used to think the same as you do i.e. American education is dumb because Americans don't know where Paris is! Until I realized that major city names are common across the US. When you say "I am from Paris" and the response being "Where is that".. It doesn't mean they don't know about Paris France but are wondering what local city in the state or neighboring state you are talking about.
The winner take all system is up to the states. That is why Maine and one other state (Nebraska? I don't remember) had split their electoral vote between both candidates. If you want to do away with that then you need to petition your state government. It is not a problem with the Electoral College.
As far as dual-party, no matter how you break up the electorate or legislature every issues becomes a binary thing. Vote yes or vote no. The major parties in the US also are not universally the same even if they have the same party. For example; a Democrat in Idaho is going to be very conservative compared to a democrat in California even if they vote for the same President and have a few common issues. Sure, it's an issue because no system will be perfect because it will be ran by humans trying to organize a change in the government. That isn't even going into the different factions inside each party (Libertarian Ron Paul Republicans or classical liberal democrats that believe in strong gun rights)
Compromise is always extremely difficult no matter how the legislature or elections are organized. That does not mean that we should implement policy rhetoric to undermine compromise. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree, nothing should happen until they can. That is a feature not a bug.
Funny thing about voting; It's private and anonymous. Anonymity is milk this nation grew on and the shield that protects it's heart. Too bad cowards like you give it a bad name.
If assumptions are all you can do; you had better just not respond. It's embarrassing.
shut up and just echo the party line.
Clinton article approvals and review before publication, giving debate questions, flying around on the same flight, corporate owners donating millions to campaign, running obvious biased articles in favour of clinton. The list goes on. ... She didn't have to say shut up because they were in bed. Did you miss all of this during the election or are you really this stupid? Why do you think people called CNN the Clinton News Network? Hint: They toed the party line through collusion and favoritism that undermined any sense of journalistic integrity. Why do you think that kind of relationship would be result in impartiality and integrity now?
just echo the party line. That's right, you can't. But that's what every press conference under our beloved new fuehrer is
Hm, really? Is CNN toeing the party line? Are there other media outlets not toeing the party line? I saw the press conferences and I saw the government and a few media organizations at odds. So what? Why should I care that Trump doesn't like CNN because they proven themselves to be devoid of integrity?
either you are cheering his godlike brilliance, or you need to shut up. Welcome to the end of democracy.
LOL, Yes, the God-King giveth and the God-King taketh away. Praise the Keks for our beloved God-King of Keks Trump. The Don G
If you think this is the end of democracy... You're and idiot. od himself, that will forever free the Kekistanis in the promised land of Kekistan. Good gravy man you should step away from the internet and smell the roses. Just breathe...
There is nothing more in civics I detest than the "you have an obligation to vote the way I want you to". Fuck you. I have an obligation to vote my conscience. If that means Trump before Clinton then so be it, No one can tell me otherwise and fuck you for thinking such tyranny. I will be damned if some fuckstick like you tells me how I should exercise my rights. My responsibility is to the Constitution and the ideals it enshrines. You are not the first ass hole to tell me to "do what is necessary" and vote for Clinton and that is more dangerous than a President Trump. America is free because I can vote for whoever I want especially when it pisses you off.
Why don't you respect democracy and let citizens be free to make the decision themselves instead casting their vote on your behalf? You do not want democracy if you actually think that way. That is tyrannical bullshit that I will not stand for. Cunt.
It's times like these I am very happy for the 2nd Amendment because of tyrant bitches like you tend toward putting down dissent with violent mob justice. Did you get a paycheck from the Clinton Campaign to riot? Piece of shit.
Yea, that is what I meant. I guess, future as in today from yesteryear. Welp, that is one butchered comment from me.
Thanks for the correction.
while Trump is denying basic science, you're not looking at what he's actually doing. It's the magicians trick of distraction.
Would be helpful if the media wasn't in full 'everything he does is literally Hitler' mantra. An argument for voting for him over Clinton was the simple fact that the media doesn't like him and were in bed with Clinton. It is much easier for the electorate to get informed when you have the government and media at odds. Is it really Trump doing the magicians trick or is it the media convinced of their own hyperbole that they lost all perspective? It takes two to tango and they would rather argue about audience sizes than the limits of executive power. I at least expect it from a reality TV show host made president and not the news media outlets.
Gee I wonder which traitor gave Putin the names?
Nice conjecture. It wouldn't have anything to do with the poor cyber security the US has, right? If you have proof that Trump is a traitor fine put up or shut up. Conjecture does nothing for no one.
but you're missing the fact he's written a law here
You mean, the executive order that stated the law it used to justify? What law is he writing when he lists the law he is using to execute the order?
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
What happened to the calls for him to divest his businesses and stop accepting foreign money? Lost in all the other stuff he's done. What about his tax returns? The fake numbers he gave in the election filing? Forgotten.
Because that was important before the election and now it is an issue for the courts to resolve... WTF is supposed to happen if you allow ANY citizen to be president?
You see how he sets the agenda by doing something really extreme, and what you miss is what he's doing at the same time. Really important stuff like blocking the head of Defence from security meetings, banning the US Director of National Intelligence from security meetings.... i.e. removing Congregational approved roles from basic government, so that Congress doesn't appoint anyone who has any role.
Is it illegal? Does congress allow the president to do this even if previous presidents have not? Sure, it sounds bad but I honestly don't know. I doubt you know either because your post is mostly knee jerk reactions. Bush did something similar with Karl Rove but this is being described as 'unusual'. Unusual != nefarious like you imply. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Your post is mostly FUD and conjecture it is sad it is modded 5 insightful. If you have something substantive provide it.
(Do you realize that only once since 1988 has a Republican candidate actually won the popular vote? That's 6 of the last 7 elections. Talk about evidence of a screwed up election system...)
That means the democrats are doing a horrible job of selling their message to half the states and republicans are hated in the cities. News at 11. There has always been (and probably always will be ) a divide between the country and city. There was compromise between those groups just to even start this nation. I think it shows wisdom that that divide is the primary contention we have at the national level. The populated cities can't rule over the country-side in the Congress or the Executive and the more that democrats think they are mandated to do so because 'muh popular vote' will continue to alienate smaller states in the elections.
A democratic nation must have compromise or else it will fail. The government was structured to accommodate the division and needs between rural and urban states which was contentious even during the Constitutional Convention. One cannot rule over the other and both must agree to have a functioning nation of independent free states.
If you think the Senate is a good idea, why would that idea not be good when applied to a different branch of government?
"Ignoring Saudi-Arabia"
Like it or not, they are our ally. When have we ever barred travel from allies?
Future fascists will call themselves anti-fascists.
Grow up and act like an adult.
the press to just turn into Pravda and echo the party line.
Oh, you mean like Clinton? You know, handing over debate questions, getting campaign approval on articles written before publishing, having direct financial ties, an obvious bias that affected the quality of journalism from reporting on the issues like the Wikileaks and said behavior, and the collusion that labeled and posted Trump as the Pied Piper i.e. someone that they thought Clinton could beat because she is that bad.
Isn't it a good thing the media and government being at odds? Let's be clear, if you want a Pravda comparison that would only applicable to the Clinton News Network and the like. The media and government at odds is the exact opposite.
Recommendation well received.
I am baffled that you think it is a 'hypothetical problem' and I think you are incredibly naive if you truly think that.
Federalist papers #10 and #62 are good reads for the weakness of democracy and the reasons for the Senate.
"our government has devolved into party-line voting to such a degree" ... Yes, and that is that natural for democracy that we should guard against. Or as Madison put it: " A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. "
Also, the Congress is the reason no new states have been admitted to the union. There is nothing stopping the addition of new states to the union except for the Congress and that territories fulfillment of a Constitutional Republic governance requirement.
Yes, i have read a number of the emails. Others have done a better job at showing what was in there. Like this There are also the emails about the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign. Colluding like who will be the Pied Piper during the Primaries to get the weakest perceived GOP candidate that Clinton could win (guess who that was) against. Or how media outlets would send their articles to get Clinton Stamp of Approval.
DNC some of the emails were altered in some crucial ways
First time I have heard of this but from the response of the DNC, clintons, media, DKIM validation, etc it seems they are legitimate. Why is it no one talks about them being altered if they were and everyone acting like they are legit?