If all the evidence is there, Speaker Pelosi will HAVE to impeach.
Cunt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:20 pmDo you understand that the popular vote is what was being rejected, by the application of the electoral college?
The whole point is that a crowded city or three should not be allowed to rule distant states.
Do you like that France has turned over immigration to the EU (for example) or do you understand that some people will always prefer to have more local control over their lives and livelihoods?
I'm not asking you to agree with the electoral college, but do you understand the point of it?
I fully understant that, as the Founding Fathers set it up, the electoral college system was aimed at avoiding demagogues and the like from reaching office, but the two party system has taken over the mechanics and has made them veer away from their original purpose. If the thought and will of the founding fathers still ruled, no elector would have even considered nominating the frump... even if the democrat party would still have lost, somebody more serious would have been president.
The position of president is that of the head-of-state, an office which is supposed to represented the interests of every citizen regardless of their location? Installing a head-of-state who most people didn't vote for seems antithetical to the principles of democracy. Weighing the vote in favour of the rural state may have been a wise in the time of the the cart horse and pony express, but in today's modern connected world it's seems more like a redundant anachronism.
So you understand that the US is not aiming for democracy, right? They are a democratic system, with provisions in place to ensure that New York and San Fran can't rule Alaska and Montana.Svartalf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:12 pm
I fully understant that, as the Founding Fathers set it up, the electoral college system was aimed at avoiding demagogues and the like from reaching office, but the two party system has taken over the mechanics and has made them veer away from their original purpose. If the thought and will of the founding fathers still ruled, no elector would have even considered nominating the frump... even if the democrat party would still have lost, somebody more serious would have been president.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, Cunt. You're always wrong, Cunt. Please be a sweetie and try to be wrong less in the future, mkay?Cunt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:22 pmSo you understand that the US is not aiming for democracy, right? They are a democratic system, with provisions in place to ensure that New York and San Fran can't rule Alaska and Montana.Svartalf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:12 pm
I fully understant that, as the Founding Fathers set it up, the electoral college system was aimed at avoiding demagogues and the like from reaching office, but the two party system has taken over the mechanics and has made them veer away from their original purpose. If the thought and will of the founding fathers still ruled, no elector would have even considered nominating the frump... even if the democrat party would still have lost, somebody more serious would have been president.
Trump was elected fairly. It's hilarious how many people insist that the rules are unfair, right after their favoured candidate loses.
Or sometimes for years after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[17] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "slavery would have been excluded from Missouri ... Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed ... the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico ... the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed."[17] While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.
Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... f-deadlineMexico intends to send 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border to head off the threat of U.S. tariffs over its lax border policies.
Despite Mexico’s intent to beef up border security, the White House is still planning to enact a 5% tariff on about $350 billion worth of goods flowing from Mexico into the U.S. on June 10. Tariffs will increase by 5% each month up to 25% in October.
"Our position hasn’t changed. The tariffs will move forward and go into effect on Monday," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday.
If negotiations are not settled before the weekend, the White House will issue a notice Friday of the tariffs expected Monday.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
