Election day ! Rally for the new Commander in Chief !

[JelenaCD]

People debating important issues yet you know what i am going to do on election night when the results are known ?
I am going to salute the new commander in chief and say a prayer for the president elect and USA ! It doesn't matter who I voted for , i respect my fellow Americans choice regardless , it's democracy , when the new president is evident you rally around that person regardless of political affilation , we are all one .

[hippifried]

Thank you.

[El Nino]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!

[hippifried]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!
Democracy is what it is. I find it fascinating that those who shriek loudest about the Constitution have the most trouble living with it.

[El Nino]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!
Democracy is what it is. I find it fascinating that those who shriek loudest about the Constitution have the most trouble living with it.

You are being very ignorant hippiefried. Here's why: First of all we are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic, wherin everybody is granted the same inalienable and Constitutional liberties that can not be infringed upon; not a mob rule democracy, which 49% are ruled and displeased by the 51% majority. Over time our country was negatively warped insofar as most people aren't even aware of their rights.

Secondly and most importantly, I will quote Thomas Jefferson and bring your asses up to speed on what real patriotism is.

"And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to evince them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security" -Declaration of Independence

Now WHO has trouble living with it Hippie crack?

[chefmike]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!
Democracy is what it is. I find it fascinating that those who shriek loudest about the Constitution have the most trouble living with it.

You are being very ignorant hippiefried. Here's why: First of all we are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic, wherin everybody is granted the same inalienable and Constitutional liberties that can not be infringed upon; not a mob rule democracy, which 49% are ruled and displeased by the 51% majority. Over time our country was negatively warped insofar as most people aren't even aware of their rights.

Secondly and most importantly, I will quote Thomas Jefferson and bring your asses up to speed on what real patriotism is.

"And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to evince them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security" -Declaration of Independence

Now WHO has trouble living with it Hippie crack?

Timothy McVeigh couldn't have quoted it better.

[El Nino]

That was actually quite the genius quote from Thomas Jefferson... and I don't think McVeigh can even be compared as such, ya putz! Why don't you try wrapping your infinitesimal pea brain around it for a minute or two and let the content soak in. Nice smear attempt once again Chef. It doesn't work anymore. If you disagree with content, than debate the content; why always resort to and lower yourself to "ad hominem" attacks and simpleton name calling tactics? It really makes you come off as an egocentric ignoramus who has closed his mind off to expansion and betterment... Boy this county is in trouble

[chefmike]

That was actually quite the genius quote from Thomas Jefferson... and I don't think McVeigh can even be compared as such, ya putz! Why don't you try wrapping your infinitesimal pea brain around it for a minute or two and let the content soak in. Nice smear attempt once again Chef. It doesn't work anymore. If you disagree with content, than debate the content; why always resort to and lower yourself to "ad hominem" attacks and simpleton name calling tactics? It really makes you come off as an egocentric ignoramus who has closed his mind off to expansion and betterment... Boy this county is in trouble

This county is in trouble? What county is that ? I believe your boy McVeigh was wearing a tshirt with a Jefferson quote when they apprehended his dumb cracker ass. You militia types are well known for using centuries old quotes from our founding fathers to justify your unrelenting paranoid hysteria... :sleep

[El Nino]

Ok, so I am "hysterical" and "part of a militia" because I quoted a line from the Declaration of Independence? You're a fucking idiot... sorry but you are. And who ever said McVeigh was "my boy"? Nice guilt by association tactics, you sorry bastard. Oldest one in the book! Man you are predictable!!! Oh yeah, if you have a problem with Declaration and Constitution; that is really something, Chef, really something. WOW

[chefmike]

Sorry, slick...but with you it's once again a case of if the tinfoil hat fits...no offense, but you are a fucking crackpot...a shrill and annoying one...you are the type of fanatic who would've signed up with Hitler's brownshirts at the very first opportunity...your type are always around, El Ninny...beware the lunatic fringe...

[SarahG]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!

Agreed but I think the coup example is a bit stretched.

More likely someone will win the office and use it to cater to majority factions... it has happened before and it will happen again.

Just because someone is president doesn't mean they're free to do whatever the hell they want, that's why we have -in theory- checks & balances.

The problem is that a true majority faction, unlike a small fringe group like NAMBLA, has enough membership to permeate into all the other institutions that make up said checks & balances (including among them, the press, people, congress, and the courts). There is a reason why when Madison was writing about the dangers of factions in The Federalist, he only showed how the country could mitigate minority factions (like NAMBLA), he at best side stepped the issue of majority factions knowing that just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean they should get it... yet there is little our system can do to prevent a majority faction. Madison's cop-out defense for the system (in view of majority factions) was to state that to counter a majority faction, all we have to do is keep increasing the size of the country to the point where no group can have a vast numerical superiority (gee, that sounds like a perfect plan!/sarcasm).

But that doesn't mean that there is a duty to give presidents a blank check "just because they're the elected president."

I am assuming in this that the president in question is put in place legally, and not through rigged (by factions) election processes... still, our system was designed to give only the illusion of democracy in the case of presidential elections, hence the electoral college & senate. This is because the people are, in numbers- just plain idiots. They're sheep, and it really isn't hard to show that time and time again in American history.

Do you REALLY want a population where almost half the country thinks Palin is qualified... something even conservatives including Laura Bush had said is simply not the case.... having real electoral power over the appointment of senators, representatives AND presidents?

I can think of at least three good case studies that show the American people don't know what they're talking about in terms of elections- the election of 1840, the election that put McKinley in power, and the election that put Nixon in power.

In 1840 Harrison was running against Van Buren who was then the sitting president going for re-election. This election, following reforms that extended suffrage to more American citizens, was the first "popular election" if there ever was one. The key point in the campaigns was that Harrison portrayed Van Buren as an out of touch rich aristocrat- and this image Harrison was so successful of scripting that the American people fell for it, and it was a key reason why Harrison- portraying himself as a "normal everyday working class American"- got elected. The reality was that Van Buren was born in poverty, and grew up in a tavern (his family couldn't even own their own home), and Harrison was as aristocratic as it gets in pre-Civil War America.

With McKinley, when McKinley was in congress he orchestrated the biggest economic crisis in our nation's history in order to help big business, specifically the steel industry. This boiled down to three changes in fiscal policy, forcing tariff policy to extend to certain matured industries (steel), forcing the treasury to exchange paper notes for gold, and forcing the treasury to make bulk purchases of silver. This totally bankrupted the federal government, the gold went straight to wealthy elitists in America & Europe, and the steel industry having a federally mandated monopoly, consolidated itself into large business empires... and in the wake most of the country's citizens went into poverty... even McKinley. So the steel industry- Frick, Carnegie and others- personally paid off his debts for the favor, and paid for McKinley to run against the sitting president... whom the republicans blamed for the crisis. The American people bought it completely, they elected McKinley- the one who had screwed them, and after they re-elected him once, and would have a second time had he not been assassinated (incidentally by someone whose family was bankrupted by the 1893 panic...not that "Niemann" had any idea that McKinley was at fault).

I could continue but I think my point is well illustrated already.

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.

Why do you think the white supremacists put such a stress on reproduction, and immigration policy? It's got nothing to do with the mexicans who come over here to work in meat packing plants- and everything to do with the supremacists hoping they can reach & keep majority faction status once more in our country.

[daltx_m]

Here is map of the current undecided states:
http://groups.google.com/group/sullivansulhmm8/
Unless you live in one of the 3 undecided states, your vote probably isn't going to do much good. Your state will probably go in its traditional Republican or Pussycrat direction.
Such is life under an electoral system, not a popular vote system. So get over it, and concentrate on getting laid.

[NYBURBS]

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.


There is no reason to loathe democracy, so long as there are sufficient safeguards (i.e., the Bill of Rights). People do behave like sheep but the alternative of handing ourselves over to the "philosopher kings" is equally unattractive.

[El Nino]

Finally some good discussion on some subject matter. Thanks both NYBurbs and SarahG. At least you guys have heads on your shoulders!

[SarahG]

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.


There is no reason to loathe democracy, so long as there are sufficient safeguards (i.e., the Bill of Rights). People do behave like sheep but the alternative of handing ourselves over to the "philosopher kings" is equally unattractive.

If there are any safe guards its not a democracy, its a republic.

In a democracy once you get that numeric superiority, all safe guards go out the window because you have all the power.

[NYBURBS]

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.


There is no reason to loathe democracy, so long as there are sufficient safeguards (i.e., the Bill of Rights). People do behave like sheep but the alternative of handing ourselves over to the "philosopher kings" is equally unattractive.

If there are any safe guards its not a democracy, its a republic.

In a democracy once you get that numeric superiority, all safe guards go out the window because you have all the power.

You can democratically elect your presidents and legislators without devolving into a rule of the mob, so long as there are safeguards. In the end you are still a republican form of government rather than a true democracy but you have the power to directly elect/remove people from office. While some would argue that the electoral college safeguards the interests of small states, I'd argue that it is outdated and needs to be removed. If I had to lay money on what the 28th Amendment will be it is the abolition of the electoral college.

[SarahG]

You can democratically elect your presidents and legislators without devolving into a rule of the mob, so long as there are safeguards.

Right, but that's still not a democracy- and I said something to the effective of how I loathe democracies- that comment still holds.


But I do have to take issue with your quote above in part... if you're democratically electing both the executive, and all of the legislative- then you effectively have mob rule- safe guards be damned. All that's left under such a proposed system, if it is like ours, would be the court- and that's hardly a safeguard.

The court could rule whatever it wants to, and it doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean anything because there is nothing to stop the rest of the feds from ignoring the ruling. The supreme court has no enforcement mechanism.

Why do you think we got Brown v BOE 2? The supreme court saw that the rest of the government was, for years, flat out ignoring Brown v BOE so they made the same ruling, TWICE- with the exact same decision, on the exact same case, only with another paragraph at the end to say something to the effect of "to enforce in due speed."

[Paladin]

That is ridiculous. "We the people" are supposed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So if a coup is staged and a corrupt or incompetent individual takes an executive position,; you people would just blindly support and go along with the trend? HAHAHA you idiots, this isn't acting American at all... God help us! DAMN!!!

She was talking about a valid election, not a takeover.

[NYBURBS]

I realize the difference, but with 300 million people I don't think most people look at democracy now in the context of everyone voting on everything. Even under our republican form of government you essentially have 51% of the people telling the other 49% what to do. The courts do not step into the frey very often to override the legislature. I recently saw the figure and the number of acts of Congress that have been overruled by the court is a tiny number indeed (in relation to the number of bills passed).

None of that changes the case for election by popular vote though. The president should be chosen by the electorate at large. The majority should not have a president thrust upon them by a minority of the populace just because of the electoral college. When that happens you actually end up with tyranny by the minority :lol:

However, at the end of the day a strong declaration of rights and the requirement to have a super majority to alter that declaration is about the best safeguard you can hope for (along with a well armed populace lol). I am border line fanatical about individual rights, but part of that belief necessitates that I support the concept of 1 man 1 vote and participatory government.

[Paladin]

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.


There is no reason to loathe democracy, so long as there are sufficient safeguards (i.e., the Bill of Rights). People do behave like sheep but the alternative of handing ourselves over to the "philosopher kings" is equally unattractive.

If there are any safe guards its not a democracy, its a republic.

In a democracy once you get that numeric superiority, all safe guards go out the window because you have all the power.

You can democratically elect your presidents and legislators without devolving into a rule of the mob, so long as there are safeguards. In the end you are still a republican form of government rather than a true democracy but you have the power to directly elect/remove people from office. While some would argue that the electoral college safeguards the interests of small states, I'd argue that it is outdated and needs to be removed. If I had to lay money on what the 28th Amendment will be it is the abolition of the electoral college.

I don't think that will happen because it won't get the 2/3 majority (or 60% whatever the number is) in the senate. ALL the small states will be against it and they account for like 75% of the states. There are only 6 states with 20 or more electoral votes and 37 with 11 or less. The math just isn't right for this.

[NYBURBS]

Majority factions absolutely exist in our country, the religious right certainly gets close to having majority faction status- and they currently control the white house AND the court, and a significant chunk of the population. Should they, if they have a numeric superiority, get power to do whatever they want in changing America? Fuck I hope not, there is a reason why we're not a democracy- even if the point is lost on most people today. I loathe democracy, its an evil justification for letting whoever has numeric superiority beat on those who don't. I don't know where I first heard it, but I'll say it again- democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There cannot be any civil liberties in a system where all you have to do, is have more in numbers than everyone else to dictate policy.


There is no reason to loathe democracy, so long as there are sufficient safeguards (i.e., the Bill of Rights). People do behave like sheep but the alternative of handing ourselves over to the "philosopher kings" is equally unattractive.

If there are any safe guards its not a democracy, its a republic.

In a democracy once you get that numeric superiority, all safe guards go out the window because you have all the power.

You can democratically elect your presidents and legislators without devolving into a rule of the mob, so long as there are safeguards. In the end you are still a republican form of government rather than a true democracy but you have the power to directly elect/remove people from office. While some would argue that the electoral college safeguards the interests of small states, I'd argue that it is outdated and needs to be removed. If I had to lay money on what the 28th Amendment will be it is the abolition of the electoral college.

I don't think that will happen because it won't get the 2/3 majority (or 60% whatever the number is) in the senate. ALL the small states will be against it and they account for like 75% of the states. There are only 6 states with 20 or more electoral votes and 37 with 11 or less. The math just isn't right for this.

Yea well there are 2 methods of proposing Amendments, one involves 2/3 of the states submitting application for a convention, and the other the traditional way of the Congress proposing individual Amendments to the states (2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of States to approve). I have heard that we are only a handful of State applications away from a second convention but I haven't seen this info first hand so I don't know for sure.

Either way people don't quite look at the electoral college the same way they used to. Back then the State was the dominant power and regional concerns trumped national ones. Now people identify themselves more with the overall union. I still think abolishment of the electoral college is most likely the next Amendment but I wouldn't be shocked if something else came along.

[Paladin]

Yes, a convention is more likely than a separate ammenement, but that would still require too many small states to give up their influence. That's a steep hill to climb on the electoral college issue. I don't think anywhere near that many states would agree to getting rid of the EC.

What else might get brought up an a constitutional convention. house and senate term limits (please please) or repeal of the income tax (dream on)???

[NYBURBS]

Yes, a convention is more likely than a separate ammenement, but that would still require too many small states to give up their influence. That's a steep hill to climb on the electoral college issue. I don't think anywhere near that many states would agree to getting rid of the EC.

What else might get brought up an a constitutional convention. house and senate term limits (please please) or repeal of the income tax (dream on)???

Actually taxes, unfunded mandates, term limits, and I would also foresee a battle over gun ownership rights. I personally would like to see a clarification of the 14th Amendment to cement the idea of rights free from state abuse and a ban on the income tax but I know the second one is a pipe dream. I would also like to see the commerce clause reworded to narrow its scope, along with the necessary and proper clause. Perhaps also a definition on how the constitution should be interpreted, to try and settle that debate one way or the other (not that new arguments wouldn't arise lol).

With that said though, a convention can be dangerous. You run just as great a risk of losing freedoms as you do gaining them.

[hippifried]

Constitutional Convention, huh? Yeah right. We'd be lucky to come out of that without ending up in a theocratic dictatorship or monarchy. You can't restrict the agenda of a convention. The first one (the only one) we had was supposed to streamline the Articles of Confederation & make them more workable. Instead, the Articles got tossed in the round file almost immediately upon convening. It ended up working out ok, but we came a whisker from having a king. I can't help but wonder what kind of system we'd have if Patrick Henry, the Rhode Island delegation, & others (19 altogether out of 74) who stayed away through conscience or circumstances had showed up.

[NYBURBS]

Constitutional Convention, huh? Yeah right. We'd be lucky to come out of that without ending up in a theocratic dictatorship or monarchy. You can't restrict the agenda of a convention. The first one (the only one) we had was supposed to streamline the Articles of Confederation & make them more workable. Instead, the Articles got tossed in the round file almost immediately upon convening. It ended up working out ok, but we came a whisker from having a king. I can't help but wonder what kind of system we'd have if Patrick Henry, the Rhode Island delegation, & others (19 altogether out of 74) who stayed away through conscience or circumstances had showed up.

I acknowledged the danger of it, but it's still a virtual certainty that another one will eventually take place. The real questions is when and what will motivate the final push for one.