Our Country Might Have Been Better Off if it Was Still Just Men Voting

[Truth Detector]

‘Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women.’

This writer is correct. In fact, if women couldn't vote we wouldn't be wasting our time on the accusations by a liberal woman against Kavanaugh.

We all know that women are kind of vindictive, right? We’re mean, nasty, overly-emotional and just can’t keep our pretty little heads about us when making those really complicated decisions that men should be handling in the first place.

https://judilembke.wordpress.com/hum...a-big-mistake/

I disagree. The only thing I would say about the woman vote is that they tend to lean more on the emotional side than the logical. But that is okay, ALL adult citizens should be allowed to vote no matter how dense they are.

My hope is that we will take back our educational system and truly educate the citizens in the future. The Nation is at risk when uneducated dullards realize that they can vote themselves free stuff through dishonest professional politicians....mostly in the Democratic Party of the Jackass.

[NiftyNiblick]

Does that help you understand my predicament/decision?

I agree that there should be a party to represent every interest.

Big tents are for circuses and Barnum & Bailey / Ringling Brothers have ceased operation.

In the legislative branch, multiple parties that prevented majorities would force dialogue to form coalitions.
That would be good. There is no dialogue now. With only two parties, the one with the majority now creates a one party system/

In the executive branch, multiple parties that prevented majorities would take the presidential vote out of the hands of the people.
The House of Representatives would choose every president, and with multiple parties, it would take forever before they came to a choice, if they ever came to a choice.
Otherwise, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to allow two votes, the latter being between the two highest vote getters in the first.
Just like most cities choose mayors.

If we change the system further than that,
like dumping the electoral college and going to a popular vote,
we now have a completely new country.
We'd be too far from the original constitution for the United States of America to exist anymore.

Whether that would be good or bad is open to debate
Our system is the oldest democratic system still operating in the world.
It may very well be obsolete compared to a modern parliamentary government.
But parliamentary governments have their own problems.
There's a lot to consider, and who could trust everybody involved with considering it?

[anatta]

No, I have not, you are incorrect, you still have not proven that Albright thinks Trump is a fascist, sorry, and it doesn’t matter how many different ways you state it, until you supply me with a direct a direct quote, as I did you, then it is just your opinion as it is the opinion of the author of the piece I posted because Albright stated she didn’t think Trump is a fascist.

You are correct Maxine is calling for impeachment, but I am not aware of any others.

That cortez (sp?) woman as well has openly supported Impeachment
Other leadership has said don't say it -Maxine Water has said as much "every time they say don't say impeachment I say impeachment".

You may be disingenous -but surely you understand politics? motivate the base with Impeachment but don't turn off the independents by actually campaigning on it.

as to Albright the source says she frequently "nudges" the reader to make the comparison.
Albright gets to slime Trump without actually saying it. I'm not going to read the book. ever.
Albright is a disgusting piece of interventionism. But it's clear what she is doing here -as the source said with the "nudging". and the source says she does it frequently in the book

[Cypress]

The claim by mouth-breathers and knuckle draggers that women are the excessively emotional gender does not hold water with me.

On this forum alone, almost all of the posts involving rage-quitting, butt-hurting, teary-eyed farewells, paltry grievances, juvenile gossiping, angry expletive-filled rants, petty jealousies and resentments, and stubborn refusals to admit mistakes are committed by....male posters.

[Phantasmal]

That cortez (sp?) woman as well has openly supported Impeachment
Other leadership has said don't say it -Maxine Water has said as much "every time they say don't say impeachment I say impeachment".

You may be disingenous -but surely you understand politics? motivate the base with Impeachment but don't turn off the independents by actually campaigning on it.

as to Albright the source says she frequently "nudges" the reader to make the comparison.
Albright gets to slime Trump without actually saying it. I'm not going to read the book. ever.
Albright is a disgusting piece of interventionism. But it's clear what she is doing here -as the source said with the "nudging". and the source says she does it frequently in the book

Again, on Albright it is the opinion of the writer of the article. Albright stated she does not think Trump is a fascist.

Again, you only offer opinions.

[anatta]

TDS is a bunch of baloney, talk about appealing to emotions.

next you are going to tell me fake news is real.. just like NYTimes "advocacy journalism" is an unbiased perspective.

TDS is based on the premise of delegitimization.

[Fentoine Lum]

next you are going to tell me fake news is real.. just like NYTimes "advocacy journalism" is an unbiased perspective.

TDS is based on the premise of delegitimization.

America has delegitimized itself before the entire world, so all partishashiteheads are left with is fecklessly flailing about blaming each other. As for your media machine it got bought up and monopolized by the corporat state once Clinton deregulated the FCC; what was once spread across 50 some odd companies back in the 1980s is now controlled by 6 multinational corporations and less that 300 entitled aristocrats.

[anatta]

Again, on Albright it is the opinion of the writer of the article. Albright stated she does not think Trump is a fascist.

Again, you only offer opinions.

opinions? more from the book review.

n her book, Trump is one nasty plucker. She labels him “the first anti-democratic president in modern US history”. Those Trumpians who know their history might retort that previous American presidents have been accused of being enemies of democracy, including some who have become the most revered holders of the office. Abraham Lincoln was charged with tyranny by his opponents during the civil war. So was Franklin D Roosevelt when he was implementing the New Deal.

Trump is different, she insists. Look at his attacks on the institutions of liberal society as he Twitter-lashes the judiciary and the media. “Outrageous,” says Albright. “It was Stalin who talked about the press being the enemy of the people.

“I also think Trump does act as though he’s above the law.” He lies without shame, she says. He threatens to jail political competitors. He foments bigotry. He lavishes admiration on autocrats like Putin and by doing so encourages the worldwide drift to authoritarianism. Observe also, she adds, how Trump exploits a crowd.

[Phantasmal]

next you are going to tell me fake news is real.. just like NYTimes "advocacy journalism" is an unbiased perspective.

TDS is based on the premise of delegitimization.

Yes, trying to delegitimize legitimate criticism of Trump. I see it used every time a Trumper is losing a debate.

[Phantasmal]

opinions? more from the book review.

n her book, Trump is one nasty plucker. She labels him “the first anti-democratic president in modern US history”. Those Trumpians who know their history might retort that previous American presidents have been accused of being enemies of democracy, including some who have become the most revered holders of the office. Abraham Lincoln was charged with tyranny by his opponents during the civil war. So was Franklin D Roosevelt when he was implementing the New Deal.

Trump is different, she insists. Look at his attacks on the institutions of liberal society as he Twitter-lashes the judiciary and the media. “Outrageous,” says Albright. “It was Stalin who talked about the press being the enemy of the people.

“I also think Trump does act as though he’s above the law.” He lies without shame, she says. He threatens to jail political competitors. He foments bigotry. He lavishes admiration on autocrats like Putin and by doing so encourages the worldwide drift to authoritarianism. Observe also, she adds, how Trump exploits a crowd.

I still do not see her claim Trump is a fascist. She thinks he’s undemocratic and dangerous, but not a fascist. Get back to me when you can quote her saying it. I’m done with this discussion until you have a quote.

[anatta]

Yes, trying to delegitimize legitimate criticism of Trump. I see it used every time a Trumper is losing a debate.

advocacy journalism is a repulsive oxymoron.
Did you get enough of Albright's non-calling Trump a fascist by direct comparison to fascists?
She is another deceitful character.

[anatta]

I still do not see her claim Trump is a fascist. She thinks he’s undemocratic and dangerous, but not a fascist. Get back to me when you can quote her saying it. I’m done with this discussion until you have a quote.

WTF do you think "undemocratic" means? = totalitarian/fascist.

No. we are done here with you exposed tap dancing, and Albright's damnation by "nudging" innuendo

[Jack]

I agree that there should be a party to represent every interest.

Big tents are for circuses and Barnum & Bailey / Ringling Brothers have ceased operation.

In the legislative branch, multiple parties that prevented majorities would force dialogue to form coalitions.
That would be good. There is no dialogue now. With only two parties, the one with the majority now creates a one party system/

In the executive branch, multiple parties that prevented majorities would take the presidential vote out of the hands of the people.
The House of Representatives would choose every president, and with multiple parties, it would take forever before they came to a choice, if they ever came to a choice.
Otherwise, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to allow two votes, the latter being between the two highest vote getters in the first.
Just like most cities choose mayors.

If we change the system further than that,
like dumping the electoral college and going to a popular vote,
we now have a completely new country.
We'd be too far from the original constitution for the United States of America to exist anymore.

Whether that would be good or bad is open to debate
Our system is the oldest democratic system still operating in the world.
It may very well be obsolete compared to a modern parliamentary government.
But parliamentary governments have their own problems.
There's a lot to consider, and who could trust everybody involved with considering it?

I appreciate the thoughtful feedback.

The Electoral College is a fraud. If one person wins an election by millions of votes, but the other guy wins, that system is NOT democratic or fair. You can spin it anyway you want, twirl it around, put lipstick on it, but in the end ... it's a fucked up system. With the Electoral College, the only people determining elections are people in 'Swing States'.

The 'Two-Party' system appears to be a failure. There's no 'the Loyal opposition'. It's a 'Red Team/Blue Team' sporting event. Each side has evolved into preventing, undoing, blocking, consternating the other 'Team'. My opinion: Competition.

Instead of the 'Coke/Pepsi' style politics, I want MORE selection. I SUPPORT a multiple Party political arrangement. With a Green Party, a Socialist Party, a Jesus Freak Party, a Conservative Party, a Liberal Party, I think there would be MORE debate, more alternatives. Forcing coalitions would be a good thing.

Disclaimer: If the Party of God becomes the dominant force, I will immediately change my mind.

[NiftyNiblick]

The Electoral College is a fraud.

The country was formed as a federal republic--a federation. Almost like the European Union.

If the overall population rather than the states chose the President, that's a completely different country.

It could be a country that you like better.
It could be a country that actually is better.
But it's not the country in which we live now.

The real problem is that the electoral votes aren't distributed proportionately.
The red states get far more than their population warrants on a percentage basis.
Proportionately, California would have 95 instead of 55 of the 538.

[Jack]

The country was formed as a federal republic--a federation. Almost like the European Union.

If the overall population rather than the states chose the President, that's a completely different country.

It could be a country that you like better.
It could be a country that actually is better.
But it's not the country in which we live now.

The real problem is that the electoral votes aren't distributed proportionately.
The red states get far more than their population warrants on a percentage basis.
Proportionately, California would have 95 instead of 55 of the 538.

You know, only male property owners over 21 could vote originally. Changing that would mean it's not the same country anymore.
(Translation: I'm not interested in why something can't be done)

For 10,000 years, homosexuals were stoned to death, ... now they can legally get married. See what happens when intelligent people think about things?