Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Mister Defense said: So the evidence you present for such a bizarre, irrational, and whacko theory is "otherwise they'd have an open primary"? Are you kidding? Any 6th grader would know better. Pretty scary ignorance here, shocking. Just say you don't understand it. It would take less writing on your part... 1 1
Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: Would she accept the loss or lead the riots. Definitely will be brought up by Trump if she mentions J6...
Mister Defense Posted July 28 Posted July 28 13 hours ago, Doc said: Just say you don't understand it. It would take less writing on your part... Nope, I understand it perfectly, think you need to do some serious reading, look at the actual facts--rather than just believe any nonsense that is thrown your way without any actual facts, evidence. 1
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Would she accept the loss or lead the riots. What does this have to do with this thread, "Saving Democracy"?
Starr-Bills Posted July 28 Posted July 28 On 1/13/2024 at 12:07 PM, B-Man said: Check Out Adam Schiff's 'Democracy' Plan to Destroy Our Constitutional Republic By Nick Arama There are a lot of reasons not to vote for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca) for Senate, not the least of which is how he has consistently tried to lie to the American people when it came to the Russian collusion hoax, claiming he had "evidence" he never managed to produce. But he just offered up another reason why he should be defeated: his "pro-democracy" plan. It is definitely a pro-"pure democracy," i.e. mob rule. An overhaul of American institutions? It would take a sledgehammer to our Constitutional Republic and what the Founders intended. The very reason we have an Electoral College is to make sure we are not controlled by the states that might have huge populations, like California and New York. We have a Supreme Court that is supposed to be independent and not neutered by the politicians, yet he wants to destroy that as well because it's the one thing that the Democrats don't think they can control at this point. Schiff's "Defending Democracy" isn't about defending the Constitution, it's about increasing Democratic control and undermining our institutions. This is the plan. This is how the Democrats want to turn our county away from its intent. The basis of the country is built on individual rights, the rule of law, and the Constitution. It's not built on the tyranny of the majority. It was to limit the power of the government and its intrusions into the lives of Americans, not to rip away all those protections. https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/01/13/adam-schiff-democracy-plan-n2168661 . Because the slave state has Lower population numbers and knew their ideas were unpopular. Don’t believe me ‘The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power due to the minimum of three electors per state.’ So if we translate what you mean by the words you say, you don’t think your vote is important and a few people should make the final decision. You know like the plantation owners want. Who want to remove the mess mob of federal agencies from their important work of making the species a multi planet species, or saving humanity (by subjugation or death) from the sin of not worshiping the god of the month. Maybe you should google “Plutocratic” finally and most Important the founders intended for the constitution to be a living and adaptable document. They even amended it almost immediately after passing it. This idea that we have to live by the experiences of rich white guys born in the early 1700’s is nuts. It’s not the Bible (which is half tora and has been rewritten half a dozen times (king James anyone). The list of things that have changed and the growth of the population is immense. They wanted a document that could change and adapt to the times and needs of the people. Unless you want to take away citizenship from African Americans, the vote from women and white men without property. Is that what you are suggesting, because that is what JD is suggesting (sponsored by the South African founders of PayPal). If so then yes the rest of us are defending democracy. if so that’s undemocratic. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Lol. Someone just read the 1619 project. Direct democracy is just mob rule. It's never worked anywhere. Especially not for the minority.
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lol. Someone just read the 1619 project. Direct democracy is just mob rule. It's never worked anywhere. Especially not for the minority. So the tyranny of the minority is better than the tyranny of the majority? 1
Starr-Bills Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Just now, Scraps said: So the tyranny of the minority is better than the tyranny of the majority? This is the fear, that you might have to listen too and work with anyone else. ever played the cake cut game? You cut the cake, I’ll pick the first piece. This is how it works. the off hand dismissive nature of these comments. Are telling, no evidence. No self reflection. No room for discussion, my way or the highway. and if it’s “never worked” maybe cite anywhere it was tried. Or what might happen if it was. I mean we have 50 experiments in democracy (states) and they don’t use an electoral college to elect governors. Not one. And apart from some serious gerrymandering (designed for minority rule) in a few states democracy can work just fine. 1
B-Man Posted July 28 Posted July 28 7 minutes ago, Scraps said: So the tyranny of the minority is better than the tyranny of the majority? That's not what he said. 1 1
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: That's not what he said. That is the end result he is defending. 1 1
Starr-Bills Posted July 28 Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: That's not what he said. So he said the tyranny of the majority was bad as a response to some complaining about the tyranny of the minority. Sure. Whatever you have to do to get though the day. meanwhile: Seems like democracy is on the ballot and only one side is trying to maintain it. 1
Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mister Defense said: Nope, I understand it perfectly, think you need to do some serious reading, look at the actual facts--rather than just believe any nonsense that is thrown your way without any actual facts, evidence. Good one. Tell me again great Biden was until the first debate and how horrible Harris was until last week... Edited July 28 by Doc 1
B-Man Posted July 28 Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Scraps said: That is the end result he is defending. In your mind. 1 1
Starr-Bills Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Seems like democracy is on the ballot and only one side is trying to maintain it. btw you can avoid the lines and not vote this time either 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 28 Posted July 28 32 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said: Seems like democracy is on the ballot and only one side is trying to maintain it. btw you can avoid the lines and not vote this time either I like the "Weird" talking point. People have "danger to democracy" fatigue. Plus "weird" appeals to young people. Freaky. Not normal. Weird. And yes, there's plenty of weirdness in the new Nationalist Right to keep that talking point going.
Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I like the "Weird" talking point. People have "danger to democracy" fatigue. Plus "weird" appeals to young people. Freaky. Not normal. Weird. And yes, there's plenty of weirdness in the new Nationalist Right to keep that talking point going. Both sides think the other is a threat to democracy/the country. It's basically meaningless at this point since each side is entrenched. 1
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Both sides think the other is a threat to democracy/the country. It's basically meaningless at this point since each side is entrenched. Only one side tried to overturn a free and fair election by pressuring officials in 5 states to overturn the results, organizing fake electors and inciting an insurrection. 1 1
Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 24 minutes ago, Scraps said: Only one side tried to overturn a free and fair election by pressuring officials in 5 states to overturn the results, organizing fake electors and inciting an insurrection. And the other side invented a Russian conspiracy to try and get the fairly elected President removed. You say to-may-to...
Recommended Posts