Tweet
Originally posted by WuShock16
View Post
-
The left would LOVE LOVE LOVE to get something on the books to constrain free speech/expression. It is a prime example of why it is inaccurate today to use the word liberal and left in the same context. A classic liberal would die before speech/expression is limited; a modern leftist cares not a bit.-
Isn't it funny (strange not haha) what 30-40 years will do to opinions? -
I think the narrative that the left is against free speech is a little overdone. There are radical elements of the right that would limit free speech as well, and ironically in the name of patriotism. This demonization of one side, and the corresponding (and false) belief that our side is always righteous, is what is causing the polarization of our politics.
-
-
A converse view:Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post
House of Representatives = small pockets of differing philosophies
Senate = larger segments of population and varying ideas/occupations/etc.
President = Electoral College
The Founders' concept was House having a representative for a given amount of people. Applying that concept without having to limit the House of Representatives because of size and managability, the House would be much more reflective of individual concerns, at least in comparison to the Senate. But it would be even farther from "popular vote," but rather a melting pot of heterogenus areas (kind of like the United States).
The primary way our elected officials have strayed from the Founders' intentions is that the House has also become long-term professional politicians (instead of bakers, blacksmiths, musicians, plumbers, electricians, farmers), more like the Senate was intended to be."I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."Comment
-
One of the very best points made in this or any political thread. Career politicians in the House are a scourge, on both sides of the aisle.Originally posted by im4wsu View Post
Comment
-
Yes. It's a great point! Furthermore, many Americans fail to realize that originally, citizens didn't vote for President. And then, the runner up became VP. Imagine, an administration with Trump at the help with H. Clinton as VP! -
Okay. I'm imagining the VP's spouse hitting on the Prez's lady. If nothing it else it might be entertaining.Last edited by 1972Shocker; July 30, 2018, 09:38 PM. -
If you don't like career politicians, then vote them out. We don't need term limits, we need an active, engaged, and informed population who holds politicians accountable. (Along those lines we need campaign finance reform, but that's another subject). I don't mind someone serving in the House for a long time, regardless of party, if they're doing a good job.
-
-
-
I don’t think the problem is in the popular vote, but rather it is in the overstepping of powers by the various branches. The president SHOULD have very little impact on the day-to-day life of a citizen. The fact that he does makes people long for a democracy on voting. I think it would be better if the POTUS had less power.Livin the dreamComment
-
Democrats whine about the EC because they've been on the losing end a couple of times in the past 20 years. Republicans think it's fine because it's worked well for them.
When the Republicans are on the losing end a couple of times, they'll whine about it. Democrats will think it's fine.
The OP seems to criticize the EC for doing exactly what it was intended to do: give more power to votes from small states. Of course, the cost of such a system is electing a President the majority of Americans did not vote for. Sure, Bush ended his second term as one of the most unpopular Presidents ever, and our current office holder appears to be on the same track. But Clinton is evidence a President can be elected by a minority and find success.
"It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGMComment
-
Who cares a gnat's ass whether a president is popular. What matters is what he can get accomplished.
Congress has no, zero, power to reel in or control or limit the President. That is the Supreme Court's responsibility."I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."Comment
-
What about vetos? What about legislation limiting presidential authority? What about Congress' power of the purse strings? What about legislation that invalidates executive orders?Originally posted by im4wsu View Post
That seems like way too broad of a statement.Comment
-
Vetos have nothing to do with Congress. Congress can override a veto, but that is not controlling the president, just with respect to the specific legislation initiated by Congress.
Limiting presidential authority. I suppose Congress can try, but the Constitution provides authority to the Congress and the Administrative Branch -- Congress doesn't have the power to do give or take authority to the President.
Congress controls the money, but again, that doesn't control the President.
Legislation is legislation. Executive orders are supposed to be issued so as to not interfere or conflict with legislation. If Congress doesn't like what a specific order is intended to accomplish, it cannot override the order, per se, but it can pass legislation that would render the order illegal.
Under Separation of powers:
Basically, Congress creates the laws.
The President is in charge of the Administrative branch that enforces the laws that Congress passes.
The Supreme Court determines, when asked, that both Congress and the President are acting appropriately in their duties. -
im4wsu, without trying to convince you that any of the others are actually checks on presidential authority (c'mon... not having funding for your executive orders is a pretty big ability to reel in presidential authority) - let's focus just on the executive order one. You admit that Congress can pass legislation that invalidates an executive order. That's a congressional ability to limit Presidential powers.
-
-
Think of the popular vote this way:
- There are 2 wolves and 1 lamb.
- They have a vote on "what should be for dinner?"
- The 2 wolves vote to eat the lamb, and the lamb votes for... whatever the hell a lamb eats.
In a true democracy, you have mob rule; and the lamb is dead. In a constitutional representative republic, the minority has a chance to have their voice heard and balance the powers that be and the lamb gets to live.
Being from a "flyover state", I damn sure don't want people who live in NYC, LA and Chicago dictating what they think is important for me.The AssmanComment
-
Another thing, that's whats so great about having states and states rights, is that they can try their own experiments and ways to do things that the people who live there believe are important.
I would be in favor of MORE power going back to the states and having very limited federal government. Let the states compete for who would be the best; the free market will weed out the winners and losers.The AssmanComment
-
That's why the constitution is such a concise document. It specifically enumerates the powers of the federal government. Anything unstated is a power of the states. Of course, 20th and 21st century lawyers got ahold of the constitution and have "interpreted" it to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
-
-
So, if we do away with the electoral college, do we then make voting laws consistent state to state? Do felons get to vote or not? Do they have a waiting period? Can they vote while in prison? What about consistent laws on absentee ballots? Early voting?
Do we just turn the elections over to the feds? If we are going to a popular vote, it would seem logical that every state should have the exact same rules, otherwise you still have an unfair system.There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
Ranked choice voting on state and national levels might allow for more people to not feel forced to vote for soulless bastards because they have an R or D. Even in those primaries, it could have huge impact as more people could vote for who they truly wanted instead of trying to pick the winner or simply voting to keep someone else out.Originally posted by jdshock View Post
The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins?Comment
-
If it weren't for the "soulless bastards" comment, I would've assumed someone forgot to sign out of their parody account. Your first post in the last nine months is to bump a two week old post that never gained any traction in the first place?Originally posted by Dark Lord View Post
Alright, I'm on board.Comment
-
This country is made up of states working together, united. If you want a different system of voting, move to a country of united individuals.People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. -Isaac AsimovComment
Comment