“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, represen

Trumpet said:
You've got that right.
Click to expand...

Something strange is going on with Guille right now. I'm not sure I've ever had a direct exchange with him. Then he popped up out of nowhere and went on a random/weird/crazy attack. Holidays are hard for some folks, but I think something else is involved here.
 
Diesel said:
Something strange is going on with Guille right now. I'm not sure I've ever had a direct exchange with him. Then he popped up out of nowhere and went on a random/weird/crazy attack. Holidays are hard for some folks, but I think something else is involved here.
Click to expand...

That is typical of Guille, he's a troll more than anything else.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yes, the blue areas are high density population areas AKA cities.

Neef, how many days before cities begin running out of food without resupply? Hint: 3-4 days.
Click to expand...

The whole purpose of a partitioned nation is for people with different values to not be writing one another's laws and tax codes.
The division of blue and red states should be negotiated with the intent of the states getting along BETTER as separate nations than a single, polarized one.
The things about which we're arguing would no longer be issues, so would we maintain a belligerent relationship because we're going to do that no matter what, united or separated?
If that's the case--we inherently don't like each other--it doesn't matter if we're one nation or two.

Why would Middle America choose to stop selling food to urban America exactly the same way as they do now?
Are they presently growing the crops and raising the livestock for fun, not because they need to sell the food to make money?

The goal isn't a civil war. The goal is for the most people as possible to live in the kind of nation that they want to live.
That's completely impossible with our present configuration.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The whole purpose of a partitioned nation is for people with different values to not be writing one another's laws and tax codes.
Click to expand...

We had that until certain political demographics didn't like what was happening in states that they didn't live in. you decry the Constitution as inadequate, when it was near perfect. If someone didn't like laws and policies in the state that they lived in, they had the freedom of movement to move to a state that DID have laws and policies that they liked.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, we had the 3 separate representations that were needed to maintain the levels of freedom each state wanted. Now, we have near mob rule. Eliminating the electoral college reduces the entire nation to the infantile wants and desires of a handful of urban centers. that is NOT representation.

oh, we are also NOT a fucking democracy, for you brain damaged liberals who keep using wrong headed terms to destabilize everything.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of the fucking history lesson.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
oh, we are also NOT a fucking democracy, for you
brain damaged liberals who keep using wrong headed terms to destabilize everything.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of the fucking history lesson.
Click to expand...

We are a constitutional republic manifested by an extremely poorly written constitution
which is revered by some of the dumbest motherfuckers to ever walk this planet.

STY stands as a perfect example.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
We had that until certain political demographics didn't like what was happening in states that they didn't live in. you decry the Constitution as inadequate, when it was near perfect. If someone didn't like laws and policies in the state that they lived in, they had the freedom of movement to move to a state that DID have laws and policies that they liked.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, we had the 3 separate representations that were needed to maintain the levels of freedom each state wanted. Now, we have near mob rule. Eliminating the electoral college reduces the entire nation to the infantile wants and desires of a handful of urban centers. that is NOT representation.

oh, we are also NOT a fucking democracy, for you brain damaged liberals who keep using wrong headed terms to destabilize everything.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of the fucking history lesson.
Click to expand...

A Representative Democracy is a form of democracy.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The whole purpose of a partitioned nation is for people with different values to not be writing one another's laws and tax codes.
The division of blue and red states should be negotiated with the intent of the states getting along BETTER as separate nations than a single, polarized one.
The things about which we're arguing would no longer be issues, so would we maintain a belligerent relationship because we're going to do that no matter what, united or separated?
If that's the case--we inherently don't like each other--it doesn't matter if we're one nation or two....
Click to expand...
You should read more history, Neef, to figure out why your plan of segregation, with some places having more and different resources than others, will not work.

NiftyNiblick said:
Why would Middle America choose to stop selling food to urban America exactly the same way as they do now?
Are they presently growing the crops and raising the livestock for fun, not because they need to sell the food to make money?

The goal isn't a civil war. The goal is for the most people as possible to live in the kind of nation that they want to live.
That's completely impossible with our present configuration.
Click to expand...
You should consider reading Joseph Heller's Catch-22 and Milo Minderbinder.

Yes, the Midwest will sell to the cities...for a price. "Pay our price or starve". Who would tell the Midwest not to gouge the cities?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You should read more history, Neef, to figure out why your plan of segregation, with some places having more and different resources than others, will not work.
Click to expand...

Where in history has a partition been implemented with the expressed intent of both sides to get along better?
What I propose is revolutionary.

You have your wild west freedom from social responsibility, your theocracy, and your misogyny.
It's what you want.

We'll spend our tax dollars on a national health service.
It's what we want.

We'll buy your food like always.
You can buy anything we may make that you want, although it probably won't be books.
You'll need to go to Daewoo to buy M16s because we don't make them in Connecticut anymore.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
We had that until certain political demographics didn't like what was happening in states that they didn't live in. you decry the Constitution as inadequate, when it was near perfect. If someone didn't like laws and policies in the state that they lived in, they had the freedom of movement to move to a state that DID have laws and policies that they liked.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, we had the 3 separate representations that were needed to maintain the levels of freedom each state wanted. Now, we have near mob rule. Eliminating the electoral college reduces the entire nation to the infantile wants and desires of a handful of urban centers. that is NOT representation.

oh, we are also NOT a fucking democracy, for you brain damaged liberals who keep using wrong headed terms to destabilize everything.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of the fucking history lesson.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The electoral college provides minority rule. How is that good ? It certainly is not democratic. It cannot be justified in terms of fairness. The tyranny of the minority should not be accepted.
When did you decide that rural people and right-wing gerrymandered votes should count more than city votes? The concept of one man, one vote, implies all votes should be equal. You obviously disagree with that.
America is a democracy according to many definitions. We are always on lists as one variety of democracies. We are a democracy and the electoral college is not sufficient to remove that designation, nor should we want it to.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
We had that until certain political demographics didn't like what was happening in states that they didn't live in. you decry the Constitution as inadequate, when it was near perfect. If someone didn't like laws and policies in the state that they lived in, they had the freedom of movement to move to a state that DID have laws and policies that they liked.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, we had the 3 separate representations that were needed to maintain the levels of freedom each state wanted. Now, we have near mob rule. Eliminating the electoral college reduces the entire nation to the infantile wants and desires of a handful of urban centers. that is NOT representation.

oh, we are also NOT a fucking democracy, for you brain damaged liberals who keep using wrong headed terms to destabilize everything.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of the fucking history lesson.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
ExpressLane said:
Then you should move to a better country. The sooner the better.
Click to expand...

Love it or leave it--the preferred "logic" of the world's dumbest motherfuckers.
If hell actually existed somewhere other than this world in which we try to live, the individual who coined the phrase would be roasting there.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Where in history has a partition been implemented with the expressed intent of both sides to get along better?....
Click to expand...
Feel free to give examples of where segregation ever worked and remained self-sustaining. I'm curious because I've never read of such a scenario.

Everything I've read is that unity = peace.
 
Nordberg said:
Wrong. The electoral college provides minority rule.
Click to expand...
No, it does not.
Nordberg said:
It certainly is not democratic. It cannot be justified in terms of fairness. The tyranny of the minority should not be accepted.
Click to expand...
protecting individual rights can never be 'democratic'. why on earth would you consider it 'fair' to run roughshod over the rights of other individuals? Is protection of individual rights tyranny, in your opinion?
Nordberg said:
When did you decide that rural people and right-wing gerrymandered votes should count more than city votes?
Click to expand...
they don't.
Nordberg said:
The concept of one man, one vote, implies all votes should be equal. You obviously disagree with that.
Click to expand...
we have one PERSON, one vote, complete equality. you do not know what you're talking about.
Nordberg said:
America is a democracy according to many definitions. We are always on lists as one variety of democracies. We are a democracy and the electoral college is not sufficient to remove that designation, nor should we want it to.
Click to expand...
we are a Constitutional Republic. end of story. democracies rule by tyranny of the majority and can negate individual rights, something the founders designed a republic not to be able to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top