|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...because the Electoral College DOES express the will of the people.... Trump had 46.1% of the vote. Clinton had 48.2%. How did the Electoral College express the will of the people?
Added by edit: They simply evened out the playing field so the mob mentality wouldn't overwhelm the will of the people. 48.2% of the voters are the "mob" whose decisions we must subvert; 46.1% of the voters are the "people" whose will must be respected? Maybe it's the other way around? How do we make that determination? Our own personal preference? Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
As much fun as it would be to learn more about why the Constitutional Convention chose this method for electing the President, it's beside the main point: you can't really call the election of the candidate who couldn't even get a plurality of the vote "the will of the people".
Dismissing the actual plurality as an "inner city mob" is just a lazy way of dismissing this embrassing election result. For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Some days ago I wrote a post about the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution concerning the Electoral College. I realized I was mistaken and decided to read more about it. I pulled out my copy of America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar. Prof. Amar goes over the Constitution article by article and clause by clause and puts each one in the context of the debates around them and their relationship with the rest of the Constitution. I decided to reread what Amar says about the Electoral College.
He disagrees with the conventional narratives that we all (in the US) grew up with, so you're all welcome to doubt his conclusions; as for me, Amar's conclusions are more consistent with what I've read about the debates in the Constitution Convention than the conventional narratives. Summary: Amar disputes the common conceptions concerning the Electoral College:
Instead, Amar proposes the following reasons the Framers went with an Electoral College:
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in the subtitle.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In the first case, you'd see small states like Connecticut and Georgia opposed to large states like Pennsylvania and Virginia.
And you did see this at the beginning of the Convention, which almost fell apart over the arguments whether each state should have equal representation in Congress or whether representation should be in proportion to population. If I recall correctly, the delegates were so committed to their positions that they weren't initially inclined to accept Madison's compromise of a bicameral Congress. Once this compromise was agreed upon, you saw small states aligning with large states in the same region; Connecticut with Pennsylvania, for example, and Virginia with Georgia. Large southern states like Virginia and North Carolina were as concerned as Georgia that as a bloc, the southern states would be at a disadvantage compared to the north if elections were determined by vote. The compromise was to give the states' number of electors equal to their Congressional representation. Since 3/5 Compromise inflated the representation of the southern slave owning states in the House of Representatives, the southern states' influence in the Electoral College (including Virginia) would be similarly inflated. By the end of the Convention, by the way, the delegates had become aware that the major political division in the US wasn't going to be large state vs small state, but northern bloc vs southern bloc. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Again, a distinction without a difference. I think there is a major difference between protecting small states vs protecting under-populated regions. I'll grant, though, that may be due to my particular interests in history; I feel too often Americans fall into a crude "states' rights" narrative when discussing the Constitution or the Founders, and I often feel obliged to point out the real life complexities of the issues in the early Republic. At any rate...
...substituting smaller population states for smaller population bloc. It's not even that. The invocation of the 3/5 Compromise to boost slave owning states' influence shows this was intended to placate one region in particular: the slave owing South. Once the structure of Congress was finally agreed to, what would prove to be the real division expressed itself: a "free North" that felt slavery was a violation of republican principles against a slave owning aristocracy whose culture depended on slavery and who were very paranoid at the thought of living among free black people. If someone is going to argue that the Electoral College is necessary to protect small states from large states or to protect under-populated regions from more populated regions, that argument needs to be developed on its own merits, not based on appeals to the intent of the Framers. The Framers had several intents in setting up the Electoral College; protecting small states from large states was not one of them. One intent that was important was assuring slave owners that owning human being as property would not be in immediate danger so that they would remain in the Union.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Great. Another conservative coward who waits until he's retiring to express his concerns with Trump.
While this is an interesting statement, what this country really needs are conservatives who are willing to push back against Trump bullshit while they're in positions to make some kind of difference. By waiting until they retire, they're pretty much acknowledging that they've deliberately squandered an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the country, and they've even given aid and comfort to its enemies.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But how does this compare to the vast number people who are run over because the look like patriotic white Bible believing Christians who love America? They're the real persecuted minority.
For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Here's how an actual Republican would have described conservatism...the importance of personal responsibility.... This one made me giggle.For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Don't mind a bit. I knew you'd be delighted about those fires. Celebs Blame Australian Fires on Climate Change Then Police Arrest 24 People for Arsons From the New York Times:
How Rupert Murdoch Is Influencing Australia’s Bushfire Debate No sense in changing the subtitle since the "conservative" response to any information they don't want to hear is to label it "fake news", so this is really addressed to everyone else. The article basically debunks the arson falsehoods.
It’s all part of what critics see as a relentless effort led by the powerful media outlet to do what it has also done in the United States and Britain shift blame to the left, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change. "It’s really reckless and extremely harmful, said Jolle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist at the Australian National University. It’s insidious because it grows. Once you plant those seeds of doubt, it stops an important conversation from taking place."For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Mller
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Added by edit: I just realized the following article is behind a paywall. My apologies.
From the Nation:
Senators Just Sold Out Democracy I'm not the only one who believes that the Republicans aren't simply try to gain political advantages but actually attempting to institute permanent one-party rule. Elie Mystal has a short opinion piece pointing out their game plan.
Their solution to the demographic changes that will soon see us become a majority-minority country is to forge a new theory of government, in which minority white rule can withstand the popular will. [ Following the provided link takes you to a page that only provides the first couple paragraphs before asking you for money. To read the article instead go to Pardon Our Interruption, scroll down a little, find the link titled "Republican Senators Just Sold Out Democracy", and click on that. This will take you back to the same page, but this time it says that you're using your first of three free articles. ] Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Describe method to view all of article.The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Hi, Phat.
It has been my experience that fake news and false "prophets" exist in both the Left and the Right. Yeah, I suppose that you can go out and find a leftwing news source that is unreliable. And I imagine that with a little more effort you may find a rightwing news item that is factually accurate. But what of it? But basically, I think we should try to avoid lazy "both sidesism" and ask: Are the sources of news that most self-described conservatives generally reliable? Or are most conservatives extremely uninformed? Are the sources of news that most self-described liberals generally reliable? Or are most liberals extremely uninformed? I'm pretty sure that there may be some bias and "fake news" among "elitist geography" round earthers, but that doesn't mean that round earth geography and flat earth geography are on the same level. In fact, as we've seen from the news that has recently appeared on the humor thread, pretending that flat earth geography is as valid a viewpoint as round earth geography can have tragic consequences.The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Yes, but billionaires can now keep more of their money, and that's what's important.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Lol.
Yeah, trying to make sure that people who are sick get medical care - that's just like Stalin. But locking kids in cages without soap or toothpaste? That's Freedom! Just like the founding Fathers intended!The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...with the added burdens that the dictionary doesn't even include their definition of socialism.... From the Official Orthodox American Conservative Dictionary: Socialism - Stuff you don't like.The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
I can't speak for anyone else, but I, for one, am glad to see Faith participating in the political threads again. And this isn't sarcasm.
He's the President and he has every right to have people around him that HE wants to have around him despite your opinions about the people he should want to have around him. I'm always a little leery about discussing the "rights" of political office holders. They may have, by virtue of their position, authority to make various decisions and may be given certain privileges, but I think the word "right" has the wrong connotations in this context.The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024