Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods
KentJones wrote:You should totally listen to the video Because you basically bring nothing to the argument against it. Not to mention I'm very liberal I don't know where you are politically but I think it's an interesting perspective on a liberal is agreeing with Trump. Watch the Video...
[youtube]RfAyx26ilyQ[/youtube]
Watch the Video...
redcarpet wrote:Even if successfully built......maybe it'd produce a 1% dent in illegal immigration from the border with Mexico. Easier to simply deport those already in the USA right now, and would only take a few months.
Now, if it were that you feel I should reconsider my position, then Democrats would have to do a number of things:
1/ accept criticism
2/ face up to the fact they are supporting the war machine
3/ be honest and admit they support corporate interests exclusively
4/ confess to political correctness being a system of belief aimed at dominance
5/ acknowledge they have been undermining the rule of law
6/ atone for their sins by jumping off a cliff
Drlee wrote:The minority of Americans who want the wall? Why would a political party do that. Trump is ignoring the majority of Americans. It seems the democrats are right where they should be. In case you forgot, they won the popular vote in 2016 by a sizeable majority.
The United States Presidency is won by the majority of the electoral college which is fair to all states, large or small. Besides, the majority of the people are not always right. The President's main job is to defend the United States of America, meaning our citizens, not illegal immigrants.
Drlee wrote:The electoral college is a leftover of slavery. Nothing more.
So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
Fact is, without the electoral college, rural representation would be crushed in a way not seen since the 17th Amendment.
You would never have a Trump again, which is the point of course.
Essentially, at this point, there is a desire to guarantee a democratization of American politics; one of majoritarian tyranny.
This is a scary prospect for someone living in the applachian region of the United States, as city folks have no fucking idea how we live and what we need out here.
Drlee wrote:Nonsense. You would still be over represented in the Senate.
Drlee wrote:The Electoral College is an idea that needs to go away and we need to move to one-person-one-vote.
Drlee wrote:Anybody but a person ignorant in American History would know this:
Did the 17th Amendment increase the power of urban majorities over Congress, Yes or No?
Without the electoral college would the rural peoples of the USA ever be able to elect a president contra the urban population (like Trump), Yes or No?
Drlee wrote:So. If rural people wish to support candidates who are not sexist, racist, homophobic, creationist, etc they ARE what you would call "urban" voters. The problem is that these easily exploited rural people get more attention than they ought to because their vote counts more.
But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
Drlee wrote:No.
Drlee wrote:Of course they could. Why Trump though? Are you somehow making the case that rural people should appoint the president based solely on their whim? The president represents all people. He/she should be elected by each person equally.
Drlee wrote:Bad question. Back at you. Why should the rural voter's vote count more than an urban vote? The only fair way to do it is one-person-one-vote.
Drlee wrote:But the problem is not urban versus rural. The hackneyed argument that city people can't understand farmers (for example) is ridiculous. The have been supporting farm bills for decades.
Drlee wrote:So. If rural people wish to support candidates who are not sexist, racist, homophobic, creationist, etc they ARE what you would call "urban" voters. The problem is that these easily exploited rural people get more attention than they ought to because their vote counts more.
Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]
@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]
There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]