The Principles of Democracy

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

245 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote mavibobo:I do not have contempt for the core values of consent of the governed we just have different views of who has the power of that consent.
Of COURSE you have contempt for the concept of "consent of the governed"... so much so you actually believe that allowing the MINORITY to at times govern over the majority is still "consent". You want a rigged system that gives SOME citizens more power in the system, as much as 70:1, than others... just because of what state they choose to live in. And when this results in minority rule... you just stick your head up your butt and deny it's ever happened.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:I did not say all small population states are rural, I did ask you what a liberal from new York who grew up and lived his whole life in new York City would know about life in wyoming.
So in other words YOU'RE NOW ADMITTING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. First it was small states need extra power to protect rural interests... but once you find out that only THREE states have a majority rural population... you STILL want even the small URBAN states to keep their extra power.

It's as I said... you'll deny it... but you have but ONE agenda... and that's to defend the status quo... and you care not if all your reasons are just smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

no I am not admiting i do not know what i am talking about i am rewording the question so you might have a chance of understanding it and answering it. the lack of answer is you proving you are not capable of answering the question so thanks for proving yet again you have one agenda and will not let it go even when you look like a fool.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:In part slavery was state law but if the Constitution didn't permit slavery, we'd not need an amendment to outlaw it.

BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IN FAVOR OF STRONG STATES AND THE FEDS HAVING ALMOST NO POWER. So YOUR approach perpetuated both slavery AND jim crow. Not that I expect you to deal with your contradiction...

NO contradiction, the state had the jim crow laws and the state should have cleaned it up, however the feds did get involved when the majority of people in several states could not get people like you to listen and change the laws.
As I continue to observe... YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AGAIN. You're on record saying

I want my local city, county, and state to have the most power while you want a central government made up of people most will never meet to run every aspect of our lives. There is a reason your highest elected law enforcement officer is your county sheriff.

Leaving aside the fact that the federal government does NOT run "every aspect" of our lives... so with slavery AND jim crow... YOU GOT YOUR WISH. And it seems you resent those faceless people in the federal government for passing civil rights. But in another place you want to blame southern Dems in the Senate for blocking civil rights... EVEN THOUGH YOU INSIST THE SENATE BE ANTIDEMOCRATIC SO THE MINORITY CAN BLOCK THE MAJORITY. Yup... no contradictions from the forum's Contradiction Queen.

Quote mavibobo:There you go again pushing for mob rule with no way for ranchers in Wyoming to stop the stupid big gulp laws forced on them by the city of new york.
I've already proposed TWO ways for minority groups to protect LEGITIMATE interests. You just ignore them and claim I didn't present ANY.... that I want "mob rule". So HOW DO RANCHERS IN WYOMING... with a rural population of only 35% protect themselves against the 65% of URBAN dwellers in Wyoming WHEN STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT YOU INSIST IS THE ONLY WAY THE RIGHTS OF THE GOD CHOSEN FEW CAN BE PROTECTED???? Somehow they manage. And you claim constitutional rights or law are sufficient for ALL OTHER MINORITY GROUPS... but you've got your pink lil panties soooooo twisted up that you think our entire federal system should revolve around the idea of giving a few ranchers a bigger say in government than OTHER citizens?

Never mind.... nothing you say ever makes sense... because in your system YOU ALSO GIVE SMALL URBAN STATES MORE POWER... let me guess... to protect ranchers?

BTW... 48% of Wyoming is federal land

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

So how many of these ranchers are paying the market rate for any federal lands that they are using?

you still do not understand I am not contradicting myself I am saying that the feds can in some situations. IE the state government is refusing to set up protections for the minorities in their state. this would only be to help the minorities have a better life. jim crow and slavery are not my wish. as far as the feds running every aspect of our lives they are very close to that now but that is a subject for another thread, but you will even see that we are becoming a ward of the state under people like you who can not live without the government telling you how to live.

you say you proposed two different ways but you refuse to see that they will do nothing to stop mob rule.

the make up of the state means nothing in the protection of the people in that state. the entire state could be one gigantic city and i would still say that the small states need protection from the large states. as i have said before the representative appointed by national committee will allow the person to vote their conscience but still not get them aequate representation. this is because the liberal lawyer in new york has not idea what the liberal in wyoming really needs. he has no idea what the interests of the liberal in south dakota really are let alone how to achive them or address them.

the federal government owning large chunks of land in the u.s. is a topic for another thread.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

Ultrax you have to ask yourself what power of authority do you turn to if the federal government through majority vote starts a jim crow style laws against the minority group of your choosing? Who do you c sd ll to stop the law, who do you call to get justice

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX: So in other words YOU'RE NOW ADMITTING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. First it was small states need extra power to protect rural interests... but once you find out that only THREE states have a majority rural population... you STILL want even the small URBAN states to keep their extra power.

It's as I said... you'll deny it... but you have but ONE agenda... and that's to defend the status quo... and you care not if all your reasons are just smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

no I am not admitting i do not know what i am talking about i am rewording the question so you might have a chance of understanding it and answering it. the lack of answer is you proving you are not capable of answering the question so thanks for proving yet again you have one agenda and will not let it go even when you look like a fool.
ROTF... you'd always be the last person to realize you can't muster an intelligent argument.... and there's a snowball's chance in hell you'd ever be that insightful. Your two years of posting here under all your names prove that.

I didn't bother answering your dumb question... I just preferred to expose it as dumb by asking...

So what TF does a able bodied person know about the life a someone with disabilities? What does a white person know about the life of a black person? What does a man know about the life of a woman? What does the trust fund brat know about a life of poverty. What does a non-vet know about the life of a war vet. What does a single person know about life with kids? What does someone who's never lost a parent know about those who have?

WE CAN GO DOWN THE LIST. Every one of the above have issues. But, no... ALL YOU CARE ABOUT ARE RURAL PEOPLE... as if they are are God's chosen to ALONE get a bigger vote EVEN IF EVEN THOSE "RURAL" STATES HAVE MOSTLY URBAN DWELLERS.

So by YOUR own "logic", such as it is, only THREE states should have more power under the Constitution than other states since only THREE states have a larger rural population than urban. So your ridiculous argument that somehow the Constitution MUST provide affirmative action for ALL small population states is laughable.

YOU are the one who's STILL refusing to admit that PEOPLE HAVE MORE THAN ONE ATTRIBUTE THAN THEIR CHOICE OF OCCUPATION. Your precious rancher that you seem to believe we MUST revolve our Constitution around could be a gay, black woman Dem pacifist. What does the straight, white guy Tea Crackpot warmonger rancher know about the first rancher?

NO citizen attribute deserves special powers... a bigger vote, under the Constitution because they CHOOSE to live as a rancher in a small population states. But you're stuck with this stupid argument because it's the one we all learned in 4th grade.

So it seems you want Affirmative Action for those chosen few... while every other minority group... and AGAIN I'm not just talking racial... only gets what you consider Brand X protections. And if you say they are good enough to protect rights... then they are ALSO good enough for your precious ranchers.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX: So in other words YOU'RE NOW ADMITTING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. First it was small states need extra power to protect rural interests... but once you find out that only THREE states have a majority rural population... you STILL want even the small URBAN states to keep their extra power.

It's as I said... you'll deny it... but you have but ONE agenda... and that's to defend the status quo... and you care not if all your reasons are just smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

no I am not admitting i do not know what i am talking about i am rewording the question so you might have a chance of understanding it and answering it. the lack of answer is you proving you are not capable of answering the question so thanks for proving yet again you have one agenda and will not let it go even when you look like a fool.
ROTF... you'd always be the last person to realize you can't muster an intelligent argument.... and there's a snowball's chance in hell you'd ever be that insightful. Your two years of posting here under all your names prove that.

I didn't bother answering your dumb question... I just preferred to expose it as dumb by asking...

So what TF does a able bodied person know about the life a someone with disabilities? What does a white person know about the life of a black person? What does a man know about the life of a woman? What does the trust fund brat know about a life of poverty. What does a non-vet know about the life of a war vet. What does a single person know about life with kids? What does someone who's never lost a parent know about those who have?

WE CAN GO DOWN THE LIST. Every one of the above have issues. But, no... ALL YOU CARE ABOUT ARE RURAL PEOPLE... as if they are are God's chosen to ALONE get a bigger vote EVEN IF EVEN THOSE "RURAL" STATES HAVE MOSTLY URBAN DWELLERS.

So by YOUR own "logic", such as it is, only THREE states should have more power under the Constitution than other states since only THREE states have a larger rural population than urban. So your ridiculous argument that somehow the Constitution MUST provide affirmative action for ALL small population states is laughable.

YOU are the one who's STILL refusing to admit that PEOPLE HAVE MORE THAN ONE ATTRIBUTE THAN THEIR CHOICE OF OCCUPATION. Your precious rancher that you seem to believe we MUST revolve our Constitution around could be a gay, black woman Dem pacifist. What does the straight, white guy Tea Crackpot warmonger rancher know about the first rancher?

NO citizen attribute deserves special powers... a bigger vote, under the Constitution because they CHOOSE to live as a rancher in a small population states. But you're stuck with this stupid argument because it's the one we all learned in 4th grade.

So it seems you want Affirmative Action for those chosen few... while every other minority group... and AGAIN I'm not just talking racial... only gets what you consider Brand X protections. And if you say they are good enough to protect rights... then they are ALSO good enough for your precious ranchers.

It's ok ultrax you can admit you have no idea what I am asking so let me re-word the question one more time.

You want proportional representation in the senate while leaving the house alone. So a liberal in south dakota votes for the liberal platform. The national liberal committee appoints a lawyer from new York city. The liberal in Wall south dakota calls up his senator the guy who has never even been to south dakota to talk about policy. What are the chances the senator has any idea about life in wall south dakota?

No I am not saying just three rural states should have more power I am saying all states should have the same power an idea you can not seem to grasp.

Now how about answering this question.

Say you are successful in proportional representation in the senate so now the house and Senate are both based off population. The state of new york, california and Ohio propose a plan that would set up jim crow type laws for the fly over states. They receive 60 percent of the vote from the population center on the coast. What authority does say south dakota call in order to stop the bad law.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:Now how about answering this question. Say you are successful in proportional representation in the senate so now the house and Senate are both based off population. The state of new york, california and Ohio propose a plan that would set up jim crow type laws for the fly over states. They receive 60 percent of the vote from the population center on the coast. What authority does say south dakota call in order to stop the bad law.

You want to claim very real examples of minority rule... and I gave examples of it happening in the presidency, the Senate, the House... and at least one supreme court justice I know of... are worst case scenarios that won't happen EVEN IF THEY ALL HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST 25 YEARS... but your whacky paranoid questions are NEVER based on worst case scenarios... in this case a repeal of the Bill Or Rights... including the tenth... and pray tell... under what constitutional authority would this imaginary law of yours be passed?

Leaving aside constitutional protections... and I've NEVER said I want to take away state powers to self-govern.... only abolish STATE SUFFRAGE.... what makes you think that under the system YOU want... where amendments can be ratified in the Senate by senators representing just 30% of the US population and states with as little as 40% of the population that the reverse could not happen?

I'm STILL waiting for you to tell us how in our system the majority can ever be protected from MINORITY rule... and what protections there are to prevent the system from becoming MORE antidemocratic.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo: It's ok ultrax you can admit you have no idea what I am asking so let me re-word the question one more time. You want proportional representation in the senate while leaving the house alone. So a liberal in south dakota votes for the liberal platform. The national liberal committee appoints a lawyer from new York city. The liberal in Wall south dakota calls up his senator the guy who has never even been to south dakota to talk about policy. What are the chances the senator has any idea about life in wall south dakota?
Damn it FO... I KNOW WTF YOU'RE BABBLING ABOUT.

YOU ARE THE PERSON WHO CAN'T GET BEYOND HOW STATES ARE REPRESENTED.

How many times do I have to say that every person has more than one attribute... the state they live in IS JUST ONE.

You seem to think a person has NO concept of the nation.

SO WHAT IF RI SENDS NOTHING BUT DEMS TO WASHINGTON... what is a right winger in that state to do? Under YOUR system... that person has representation for some RI issue... but NO representation for their beliefs.

WE DON'T NEED BOTH CHAMBERS BEING STATE BASED. With YOUR system too many people are deprived of representation for what they believe because state based elections ARE INCAPABLE OF MEASURING "CONSENT" OF SMALLER MINORITIES... as a result these citizens get NO representation... and with their ideas excluded from Washington... the system becomes intellectually braindead. It also perpetuates the artificial two party system.

Having the Senate based on NATIONAL elections allows smaller minorities... like libertarians and Greens who each may make up 10% nationally but who can't win ANY election in their states... TO FINALLY GET A SEAT IN WASHINGTON.

YOU WANT TO DEPRIVE THESE CITIZENS OF REPRESENTATION...

Quote mavibobo: No I am not saying just three rural states should have more power
I never said YOU DID FAVOR THIS. I said THIS IS WHERE YOUR "LOGIC" OF PROTECTING RURAL INTERESTS LEADS. You want it both ways... to claim protecting rural interest is the REASON for antidemocratic representation... but when it turns out small URBAN states get the same over-representation... you pretend your original reason doesn't matter.

Quote mavibobo: I am saying all states should have the same power an idea you can not seem to grasp.
AS I SAID WAS YOUR ONLY AGENDA.

Give it a break Einstein... I know what state suffrage is. IT'S THE SOURCE OF EVERY ANTIDEMOCRATIC FEATURE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE A STATE OF 1 MILLION PEOPLE SHOULD GET THE SAME POWER AS A STATE WITH 100 MILLION. And you can't pretend states are equal WHEN YOU ALREADY ADMITTED IT'S THE PEOPLE IN THE STATES THAT HAVE THE SAY... and the ratio between the largest and smallest is 70:1. It's like saying if Taiwan and China formed one nation, they'd both deserve an equal vote. DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED... NOT TRESS, ACREAGE OR INTERESTS. But at least in the system I suggest people can vote to have represented more than one aspect of themselves... their political beliefs AND regional interests AND EVERYONE GETS SOME TRUE REPRESENTATION. In your system you want BOTH chambers to represent regional interests and a two person race the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters are ignored... more in 3 way races like 1992 where Clinton "won" with 42%.

The bottom line remains: WHENEVER some people get a bigger vote at the expense of others... IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE... something you KNOW exists, but feel compelled to pretend never happens... or won't happen again... EVEN THOUGH TWO OF THE LAST 3 PRESIDENTS FAILED TO WIN A MAJORITY OF VOTES.

All these whacky intellectual contortions you're going through are because you're using those traditional justifications for our system that SOUNDS logical... until one digs deeper or slices the representation pie a different way and suddenly sees the insanity of antidemocratic government. There's a reason there was so much resistance to the Constitution being ratified... and it might not have been ratified if the nation was not in such dire condition back in 1787. BUT ALL THOSE OPPOSING VIEWS HAVE BEEN SCRUBBED FROM MEMORY. Here in Massachusetts the vote was 187 for to 168 against... and this was AFTER there was a promise to add a Bill Of Rights. In 4th grade are we taught the views of those 47% ? OF COURSE NOT.

All your smokescreens and rationalizations serve NO other purpose but to HIDE the antidemocratic insanity of our system by defining it away.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:Now how about answering this question. Say you are successful in proportional representation in the senate so now the house and Senate are both based off population. The state of new york, california and Ohio propose a plan that would set up jim crow type laws for the fly over states. They receive 60 percent of the vote from the population center on the coast. What authority does say south dakota call in order to stop the bad law.

You want to claim very real examples of minority rule... and I gave examples of it happening in the presidency, the Senate, the House... and at least one supreme court justice I know of... are worst case scenarios that won't happen EVEN IF THEY ALL HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST 25 YEARS... but your whacky paranoid questions are NEVER based on worst case scenarios... in this case a repeal of the Bill Or Rights... including the tenth... and pray tell... under what constitutional authority would this imaginary law of yours be passed?

Leaving aside constitutional protections... and I've NEVER said I want to take away state powers to self-govern.... only abolish STATE SUFFRAGE.... what makes you think that under the system YOU want... where amendments can be ratified in the Senate by senators representing just 30% of the US population and states with as little as 40% of the population that the reverse could not happen?

I'm STILL waiting for you to tell us how in our system the majority can ever be protected from MINORITY rule... and what protections there are to prevent the system from becoming MORE antidemocratic.

Since when does the federal government worry about the constitution?

What makes you think you can stop mob rule, or that a popular law in new York City and Los angles would be popular in wall south dakota, how does south dakota stop the bad law? Who do they turn to when it is the feds who are passing the bad law? They can't turn to the supreme court the mob already loaded the court with people who hate the midwest.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo: It's ok ultrax you can admit you have no idea what I am asking so let me re-word the question one more time. You want proportional representation in the senate while leaving the house alone. So a liberal in south dakota votes for the liberal platform. The national liberal committee appoints a lawyer from new York city. The liberal in Wall south dakota calls up his senator the guy who has never even been to south dakota to talk about policy. What are the chances the senator has any idea about life in wall south dakota?
Damn it FO... I KNOW WTF YOU'RE BABBLING ABOUT.

YOU ARE THE PERSON WHO CAN'T GET BEYOND HOW STATES ARE REPRESENTED.

How many times do I have to say that every person has more than one attribute... the state they live in IS JUST ONE.

You seem to think a person has NO concept of the nation.

SO WHAT IF RI SENDS NOTHING BUT DEMS TO WASHINGTON... what is a right winger in that state to do? Under YOUR system... that person has representation for some RI issue... but NO representation for their beliefs.

WE DON'T NEED BOTH CHAMBERS BEING STATE BASED. With YOUR system too many people are deprived of representation for what they believe because state based elections ARE INCAPABLE OF MEASURING "CONSENT" OF SMALLER MINORITIES... as a result these citizens get NO representation... and with their ideas excluded from Washington... the system becomes intellectually braindead. It also perpetuates the artificial two party system.

Having the Senate based on NATIONAL elections allows smaller minorities... like libertarians and Greens who each may make up 10% nationally but who can't win ANY election in their states... TO FINALLY GET A SEAT IN WASHINGTON.

YOU WANT TO DEPRIVE THESE CITIZENS OF REPRESENTATION...

Quote mavibobo: No I am not saying just three rural states should have more power
I never said YOU DID FAVOR THIS. I said THIS IS WHERE YOUR "LOGIC" OF PROTECTING RURAL INTERESTS LEADS. You want it both ways... to claim protecting rural interest is the REASON for antidemocratic representation... but when it turns out small URBAN states get the same over-representation... you pretend your original reason doesn't matter.

Quote mavibobo: I am saying all states should have the same power an idea you can not seem to grasp.
AS I SAID WAS YOUR ONLY AGENDA.

Give it a break Einstein... I know what state suffrage is. IT'S THE SOURCE OF EVERY ANTIDEMOCRATIC FEATURE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE A STATE OF 1 MILLION PEOPLE SHOULD GET THE SAME POWER AS A STATE WITH 100 MILLION. And you can't pretend states are equal WHEN YOU ALREADY ADMITTED IT'S THE PEOPLE IN THE STATES THAT HAVE THE SAY... and the ratio between the largest and smallest is 70:1. It's like saying if Taiwan and China formed one nation, they'd both deserve an equal vote. DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED... NOT TRESS, ACREAGE OR INTERESTS. But at least in the system I suggest people can vote to have represented more than one aspect of themselves... their political beliefs AND regional interests AND EVERYONE GETS SOME TRUE REPRESENTATION. In your system you want BOTH chambers to represent regional interests and a two person race the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters are ignored... more in 3 way races like 1992 where Clinton "won" with 42%.

The bottom line remains: WHENEVER some people get a bigger vote at the expense of others... IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE... something you KNOW exists, but feel compelled to pretend never happens... or won't happen again... EVEN THOUGH TWO OF THE LAST 3 PRESIDENTS FAILED TO WIN A MAJORITY OF VOTES.

All these whacky intellectual contortions you're going through are because you're using those traditional justifications for our system that SOUNDS logical... until one digs deeper or slices the representation pie a different way and suddenly sees the insanity of antidemocratic government. There's a reason there was so much resistance to the Constitution being ratified... and it might not have been ratified if the nation was not in such dire condition back in 1787. BUT ALL THOSE OPPOSING VIEWS HAVE BEEN SCRUBBED FROM MEMORY. Here in Massachusetts the vote was 187 for to 168 against... and this was AFTER there was a promise to add a Bill Of Rights. In 4th grade are we taught the views of those 47% ? OF COURSE NOT.

All your smokescreens and rationalizations serve NO other purpose but to HIDE the antidemocratic insanity of our system by defining it away.

I keep saying that each house should have state representation for the same reason you are not capable of answering my question? People who have never been outside of new York City or Massachusetts have no idea what life is like in the Midwest. Hell I bet most liberals could not find Bagdad Arizona on a map.

The libertarians and the green party just have to hold the feet of their congressmen to the fire. Once congressmen are elected they are supposed to represent everyone in their state. They are supposed to be open minded and look at what would be best for the people of their state, which is the exact opposite of what you seem capable of doing.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

How about this proposal

We increase the size of the senate to two hundred reps. Each state has 4 senators how ever they can only send one democrat and one republican the other two seats can be any party they choose as long as they are not an R or a D. If they do not have any third or 4th parties those seats sit empty.

Each senator is limited to two terms their compensation will be the same as the average of the income of their state.

President and vice president are the top to vote count regardless of party.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

More questions BooBoo's evaded

Quote ulTRAX: Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

I would explain it but you would not understand the answer next question.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

More questions BooBoo's evaded

Quote ulTRAX: Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Well since morals change by who you ask you would not understand next question.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

I would explain it but you would not understand the answer next question.
EVASION ALERT!!!

BTW Einstein, there's nothing you can say that I don't understand. You make it rather easy because your only agenda is to justify our dysfunctional system... mixed in with some resentment against anyone you don't like being able to win elections especially if the system is rigged against them.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

More questions BooBoo's evaded

Quote ulTRAX: Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Well since morals change by who you ask you would not understand next question.
EVASION ALERT #2!!!!

And this is what holds your delusions together. You never were able to understand what anyone you disagree with says... and you instinctively evade anything that threatens all the holes and contradictions in your beliefs. And POOF... like magic, you can go through life always convinced everything you say makes perfect sense... even when you're caught red handed lying through your teeth about the Disabled Seaman's Act.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

I would explain it but you would not understand the answer next question.
EVASION ALERT!!!

BTW Einstein, there's nothing you can say that I don't understand. You make it rather easy because your only agenda is to justify our dysfunctional system... mixed in with some resentment against anyone you don't like being able to win elections especially if the system is rigged against them.

I understand that you will never understand this but here goes, the ec was set up so that each state had a certain amount of people that would represent the votes of the people of that state. Each state rep would vote for the candidate that won the election in that state. Once all of those where counted up they determined a winner. The system worked pretty well for the time it was set up. However it could use some changing now. They only problem is how to keep everyone from cheating.

The system is set up the same for everyone no one is at a disadvantage again something you will not understand

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

More questions BooBoo's evaded

Quote ulTRAX: Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Well since morals change by who you ask you would not understand next question.
EVASION ALERT #2!!!!

And this is what holds your delusions together. You never were able to understand what anyone you disagree with says... and you instinctively evade anything that threatens all the holes and contradictions in your beliefs. And POOF... like magic, you can go through life always convinced everything you say makes perfect sense... even when you're caught red handed lying through your teeth about the Disabled Seaman's Act.

I have explained the whole state rights in order to stop mob rule to you several times but you can't let go of Parliament idea. I even posted an alternative but hey why should I expect you to understand anything that happens in reality.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

EVASION ALERT #2!!!!

And this is what holds your delusions together. You never were able to understand what anyone you disagree with says... and you instinctively evade anything that threatens all the holes and contradictions in your beliefs. And POOF... like magic, you can go through life always convinced everything you say makes perfect sense... even when you're caught red handed lying through your teeth about the Disabled Seaman's Act.

I have explained the whole state rights in order to stop mob rule to you several times but you can't let go of Parliament idea. I even posted an alternative but hey why should I expect you to understand anything that happens in reality.
There you go AGAIN... proving that you really can't understand anything you disagree with... or perhaps you only want what you want even and don't even understand why.

States Rights under the 10th has NOTHING to do with State Suffrage. I've NEVER said I want to abolish the 10th... only state suffrage. Even after 50 posts trying to explain that I NEVER advocated a system of "mob rule"... but one of checks and balances where legitimate minority rights are protected... and this means ALL minority groups including your precious ranchers... you can't get beyond what you learned in 4th grade that only states matter... even though the "logic" behind your claims has been destroyed. And you've still not dealt with the core flaw in your system that your SINGLE chosen minority, those who choose to live in small state, isn't limited to protecting their rights BUT HAS THE POWER OVER EVERY LAW MADE. Under your system a president who was REJECTED by the People and senators representing as little as 30% of the US population can not just block EVERYTHING that comes out of the House, but can subject the rest of the population to treaties and executive/judicial nominations up to 70% of the US population might oppose. YOU'RE DEFENDING A SYSTEM THAT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

I would explain it but you would not understand the answer next question.
EVASION ALERT!!!

BTW Einstein, there's nothing you can say that I don't understand. You make it rather easy because your only agenda is to justify our dysfunctional system... mixed in with some resentment against anyone you don't like being able to win elections especially if the system is rigged against them.

I understand that you will never understand this but here goes, the ec was set up so that each state had a certain amount of people that would represent the votes of the people of that state. Each state rep would vote for the candidate that won the election in that state. Once all of those where counted up they determined a winner. The system worked pretty well for the time it was set up. However it could use some changing now. They only problem is how to keep everyone from cheating. The system is set up the same for everyone no one is at a disadvantage again something you will not understand
THERE YOU GO AGAIN... you actually think that if someone disagrees with the concept of the EC... that they don't understand it. It never sinks in that perhaps someone DOES understand it... AND THEY REJECT THE EXPLANATION AS NONSENSE. If Russia had such a system where elections losers still took office... you'd nod your head in disgust... but if it happens here, people like you EMBRACE IT.

For the 1000th time... I REJECT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHERE THE VOTES OF SOME CITIZENS WEIGH MORE THAN OTHERS BECAUSE IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE... I WANT ALL VOTES TO COUNT AND WEIGH THE SAME.

In election 2000 the EC formula permitted the votes of 537 citizens in Bush's FL lead to weigh as much as the 537000 citizen votes in Gore's national lead in deciding the outcome.

So for the 1000th time... where in the system YOU favor is there ANY protection against minority rule?

BTW your fixation on "cheating" is a strawman because in our system even if there was 100% voter participation, 100% vote count accuracy, and ZERO voter/election fraud... a candidate REJECTED by the People can still be imposed on the nation as president. The concept of the EC can not be salvaged... at least not if we want morally legitimately elected presidents... and to insure we don't have another election 1992... we need an instant runoff system

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

EVASION ALERT #2!!!!

And this is what holds your delusions together. You never were able to understand what anyone you disagree with says... and you instinctively evade anything that threatens all the holes and contradictions in your beliefs. And POOF... like magic, you can go through life always convinced everything you say makes perfect sense... even when you're caught red handed lying through your teeth about the Disabled Seaman's Act.

I have explained the whole state rights in order to stop mob rule to you several times but you can't let go of Parliament idea. I even posted an alternative but hey why should I expect you to understand anything that happens in reality.
There you go AGAIN... proving that you really can't understand anything you disagree with... or perhaps you only want what you want even and don't even understand why.

States Rights under the 10th has NOTHING to do with State Suffrage. I've NEVER said I want to abolish the 10th... only state suffrage. Even after 50 posts trying to explain that I NEVER advocated a system of "mob rule"... but one of checks and balances where legitimate minority rights are protected... and this means ALL minority groups including your precious ranchers... you can't get beyond what you learned in 4th grade that only states matter... even though the "logic" behind your claims has been destroyed. And you've still not dealt with the core flaw in your system that your SINGLE chosen minority, those who choose to live in small state, isn't limited to protecting their rights BUT HAS THE POWER OVER EVERY LAW MADE. Under your system a president who was REJECTED by the People and senators representing as little as 30% of the US population can not just block EVERYTHING that comes out of the House, but can subject the rest of the population to treaties and executive/judicial nominations up to 70% of the US population might oppose. YOU'RE DEFENDING A SYSTEM THAT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.

There you go again saying you want rights protected without admitting there is no way to do so in a straight majority vote. The majority will eventually take away the rights they do not agree with. If 70 percent of the nation approves of anything a large amount of them will also live in the small population states. What you are saying us that everyone of the senators in the small states will disagree with the large states on everything and force the large states to bend to their will. Some thing that will never happen. Did 4 presidents that lost the popular vote win sure they did, does that kind of suck? Yep it does but I have said the ec should be changed as long as we can insure that we will not have the old Chicago dems showing up. You know vote early vote often even the illegal and the dead can vote.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:Getting back to old questions you seem determined to evade... I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed can ever let someone REJECTED by the People be allowed to take power.

And specifically how is the EC "pretty messed up".

I would explain it but you would not understand the answer next question.
EVASION ALERT!!!

BTW Einstein, there's nothing you can say that I don't understand. You make it rather easy because your only agenda is to justify our dysfunctional system... mixed in with some resentment against anyone you don't like being able to win elections especially if the system is rigged against them.

I understand that you will never understand this but here goes, the ec was set up so that each state had a certain amount of people that would represent the votes of the people of that state. Each state rep would vote for the candidate that won the election in that state. Once all of those where counted up they determined a winner. The system worked pretty well for the time it was set up. However it could use some changing now. They only problem is how to keep everyone from cheating. The system is set up the same for everyone no one is at a disadvantage again something you will not understand
THERE YOU GO AGAIN... you actually think that if someone disagrees with the concept of the EC... that they don't understand it. It never sinks in that perhaps someone DOES understand it... AND THEY REJECT THE EXPLANATION AS NONSENSE. If Russia had such a system where elections losers still took office... you'd nod your head in disgust... but if it happens here, people like you EMBRACE IT.

For the 1000th time... I REJECT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHERE THE VOTES OF SOME CITIZENS WEIGH MORE THAN OTHERS BECAUSE IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE... I WANT ALL VOTES TO COUNT AND WEIGH THE SAME.

In election 2000 the EC formula permitted the votes of 537 citizens in Bush's FL lead to weigh as much as the 537000 citizen votes in Gore's national lead in deciding the outcome.

So for the 1000th time... where in the system YOU favor is there ANY protection against minority rule?

BTW your fixation on "cheating" is a strawman because in our system even if there was 100% voter participation, 100% vote count accuracy, and ZERO voter/election fraud... a candidate REJECTED by the People can still be imposed on the nation as president. The concept of the EC can not be salvaged... at least not if we want morally legitimately elected presidents... and to insure we don't have another election 1992... we need an instant runoff system

Yep you are still stuck on your way or the high way even though it will lead to mob rule. As far as presidential elections I gave an alternative to the ec already. However we still need to keep both sides from cheating we can't have any more districts turning 125 percent voter turn out.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

There you go AGAIN... proving that you really can't understand anything you disagree with... or perhaps you only want what you want even and don't even understand why.

States Rights under the 10th has NOTHING to do with State Suffrage. I've NEVER said I want to abolish the 10th... only state suffrage. Even after 50 posts trying to explain that I NEVER advocated a system of "mob rule"... but one of checks and balances where legitimate minority rights are protected... and this means ALL minority groups including your precious ranchers... you can't get beyond what you learned in 4th grade that only states matter... even though the "logic" behind your claims has been destroyed. And you've still not dealt with the core flaw in your system that your SINGLE chosen minority, those who choose to live in small state, isn't limited to protecting their rights BUT HAS THE POWER OVER EVERY LAW MADE. Under your system a president who was REJECTED by the People and senators representing as little as 30% of the US population can not just block EVERYTHING that comes out of the House, but can subject the rest of the population to treaties and executive/judicial nominations up to 70% of the US population might oppose. YOU'RE DEFENDING A SYSTEM THAT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.

There you go again saying you want rights protected without admitting there is no way to do so in a straight majority vote.
Where have I EVER said I want rights to be taken away with a straight majority vote? And when you can't find it I expect a retraction. But I know you're not capable of retracting any stupid thing you ever say. You just think it was handed down on a slab

Quote mavibobo:The majority will eventually take away the rights they do not agree with.
If you believe that to be true... then it can happen in the current system as evidenced by Prohibition. So please stop pretending you have some fail safe method of protecting right by giving ONE SINGLE MINORITY, OUT OF TENS AND MORE TENS, MORE POWER THAN OTHER CITIZENS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PERMITTING MINORITY RULE.

Quote mavibobo:If 70 percent of the nation approves of anything a large amount of them will also live in the small population states.
For the thousandth time I DO NOT CARE WHERE CITIZENS CHOOSE TO LIVE. I want them ALL to have an equal vote REGARDLESS where they choose to live.

Quote mavibobo:What you are saying us that everyone of the senators in the small states will disagree with the large states on everything and force the large states to bend to their will. Some thing that will never happen.
It doesn't matter how the states line up. I've already PROVEN that the Senate gives 52% of the seats to a mere 18% of the US population... and VOTES for each party show a party can get FEWER votes than the other yet still control the Senate... with all the special powers it has under the Constitution.

Quote mavibobo:Did 4 presidents that lost the popular vote win sure they did, does that kind of suck? Yep it does but I have said the ec should be changed as long as we can insure that we will not have the old Chicago dems showing up. You know vote early vote often even the illegal and the dead can vote.
Ya ya... it's always the Dems who can't be trusted. But you just assume the GOP respects democracy when there's NO evidence of this.

I DON'T TRUST EITHER MAJOR PARTY... and I DON'T TRUST THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EC.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you WANT antidemocratic government then say you want the EC to change in a manner that is democratic. If you want a president to be elected democratically... THEN WE DON'T NEED THE EC. The popular vote will do. It's ONLY purpose of the EC is to make the system ANTI-democratic.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

There you go AGAIN... proving that you really can't understand anything you disagree with... or perhaps you only want what you want even and don't even understand why.

States Rights under the 10th has NOTHING to do with State Suffrage. I've NEVER said I want to abolish the 10th... only state suffrage. Even after 50 posts trying to explain that I NEVER advocated a system of "mob rule"... but one of checks and balances where legitimate minority rights are protected... and this means ALL minority groups including your precious ranchers... you can't get beyond what you learned in 4th grade that only states matter... even though the "logic" behind your claims has been destroyed. And you've still not dealt with the core flaw in your system that your SINGLE chosen minority, those who choose to live in small state, isn't limited to protecting their rights BUT HAS THE POWER OVER EVERY LAW MADE. Under your system a president who was REJECTED by the People and senators representing as little as 30% of the US population can not just block EVERYTHING that comes out of the House, but can subject the rest of the population to treaties and executive/judicial nominations up to 70% of the US population might oppose. YOU'RE DEFENDING A SYSTEM THAT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.

There you go again saying you want rights protected without admitting there is no way to do so in a straight majority vote.
Where have I EVER said I want rights to be taken away with a straight majority vote? And when you can't find it I expect a retraction. But I know you're not capable of retracting any stupid thing you ever say. You just think it was handed down on a slab

Quote mavibobo:The majority will eventually take away the rights they do not agree with.
If you believe that to be true... then it can happen in the current system as evidenced by Prohibition. So please stop pretending you have some fail safe method of protecting right by giving ONE SINGLE MINORITY, OUT OF TENS AND MORE TENS, MORE POWER THAN OTHER CITIZENS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PERMITTING MINORITY RULE.

Quote mavibobo:If 70 percent of the nation approves of anything a large amount of them will also live in the small population states.
For the thousandth time I DO NOT CARE WHERE CITIZENS CHOOSE TO LIVE. I want them ALL to have an equal vote REGARDLESS where they choose to live.

Quote mavibobo:What you are saying us that everyone of the senators in the small states will disagree with the large states on everything and force the large states to bend to their will. Some thing that will never happen.
It doesn't matter how the states line up. I've already PROVEN that the Senate gives 52% of the seats to a mere 18% of the US population... and VOTES for each party show a party can get FEWER votes than the other yet still control the Senate... with all the special powers it has under the Constitution.

Quote mavibobo:Did 4 presidents that lost the popular vote win sure they did, does that kind of suck? Yep it does but I have said the ec should be changed as long as we can insure that we will not have the old Chicago dems showing up. You know vote early vote often even the illegal and the dead can vote.
Ya ya... it's always the Dems who can't be trusted. But you just assume the GOP respects democracy when there's NO evidence of this.

I DON'T TRUST EITHER MAJOR PARTY... and I DON'T TRUST THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC EC.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you WANT antidemocratic government then say you want the EC to change in a manner that is democratic. If you want a president to be elected democratically... THEN WE DON'T NEED THE EC. The popular vote will do. It's ONLY purpose of the EC is to make the system ANTI-democratic.

You really do not understand do you, even with the protections you claim you want without explaining how to keep them, the majority will find a way without allowing for some system to stop them. So you will get no retraction because you just have no clue how things work.

So you do not care how reality lines up with the state senators voting on things you are just pissed off because you live in a heavily populated area and still can't get your way. It must really deflate your ego believing you are that helpless.

More later

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo: You really do not understand do you, even with the protections you claim you want without explaining how to keep them, the majority will find a way without allowing for some system to stop them.
NO SYSTEM WILL EVER BE PERFECT IN PROTECTING RIGHTS... AND NEITHER IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM AS PROHIBITION PROVES.

So please stop pretending YOU ALONE have some fail safe method of protecting rights by giving ONLY ONE SINGLE MINORITY, THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SMALL POPULATION STATES, MORE POWER THAN OTHER CITIZENS. Your claims have been proven to be complete bullsh*t.

You're ignoring all the defects in the current system such as

In YOUR system the votes of citizens are UNEQUAL depending on a completely arbitrary criteria such as choice of state residence.

In YOUR system minority rule is possible, in the presidency, the Senate, the House and the amendment process

In YOUR system, while any citizen has many more attributes than merely their choice of state residence, regional interests are given more emphasis over all else.

In YOUR system where the winner takes all, the power of SOME citizens is amplified at the expense of others because in YOUR system the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters simply don't matter.

In YOUR system the votes of smaller political minority groups... Greens, libertarians ect that can't muster a majority in any district of state NEVER COUNT. Their consent to govern is stolen in a winner take all system. They can vote FOREVER and never get representation for their beliefs.

In YOUR system as the result of the above, the political spectrum is artificially narrowed and I'd argue has become intellectually braindead...

In YOUR system demographic changes between states are making the government more and more antidemocratic and more and more reform-proof.

Because of the above... vast numbers of citizens don't bother voting because unlike other systems THEIR VOTES ARE USUALLY MEANINGLESS. Voting rates in off year elections are usually a pathetic 35% in the US while other nations it's in the 80-90% range. OUR VERY SYSTEM TEACHES CITIZENS THAT VOTING IS NOT WORTH THE HASSLE. What's the point of voting if there are not enough choice, people REJECTED in elections can still be imposed on the nation, and the system is virtually reform proof etc?

I TRY TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE DEFECTS AND PROTECT RIGHTS... you just pretend you have some monopoly on protecting rights AND YOU IGNORE ALL THE ABOVE DEFECTS.

So FO... try coming back when you get your head out of your butt and deal with ALL the defects in our system instead of ignoring them. But then we know that won't happen since your ONLY agenda is to justify, and apologize for, the current system.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo: You really do not understand do you, even with the protections you claim you want without explaining how to keep them, the majority will find a way without allowing for some system to stop them.
NO SYSTEM WILL EVER BE PERFECT IN PROTECTING RIGHTS... AND NEITHER IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM AS PROHIBITION PROVES.

So please stop pretending YOU ALONE have some fail safe method of protecting rights by giving ONLY ONE SINGLE MINORITY, THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SMALL POPULATION STATES, MORE POWER THAN OTHER CITIZENS. Your claims have been proven to be complete bullsh*t.

You're ignoring all the defects in the current system such as

In YOUR system the votes of citizens are UNEQUAL depending on a completely arbitrary criteria such as choice of state residence.

In YOUR system minority rule is possible, in the presidency, the Senate, the House and the amendment process

In YOUR system, while any citizen has many more attributes than merely their choice of state residence, regional interests are given more emphasis over all else.

In YOUR system where the winner takes all, the power of SOME citizens is amplified at the expense of others because in YOUR system the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters simply don't matter.

In YOUR system the votes of smaller political minority groups... Greens, libertarians ect that can't muster a majority in any district of state NEVER COUNT. Their consent to govern is stolen in a winner take all system. They can vote FOREVER and never get representation for their beliefs.

In YOUR system as the result of the above, the political spectrum is artificially narrowed and I'd argue has become intellectually braindead...

In YOUR system demographic changes between states are making the government more and more antidemocratic and more and more reform-proof.

Because of the above... vast numbers of citizens don't bother voting because unlike other systems THEIR VOTES ARE USUALLY MEANINGLESS. Voting rates in off year elections are usually a pathetic 35% in the US while other nations it's in the 80-90% range. OUR VERY SYSTEM TEACHES CITIZENS THAT VOTING IS NOT WORTH THE HASSLE. What's the point of voting if there are not enough choice, people REJECTED in elections can still be imposed on the nation, and the system is virtually reform proof etc?

I TRY TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE DEFECTS AND PROTECT RIGHTS... you just pretend you have some monopoly on protecting rights AND YOU IGNORE ALL THE ABOVE DEFECTS.

So FO... try coming back when you get your head out of your butt and deal with ALL the defects in our system instead of ignoring them. But then we know that won't happen since your ONLY agenda is to justify, and apologize for, the current system.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo: --crickets--

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo: --crickets--

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Well my last post did not post so here goes again.

First off our system does not weigh some citizens heavier then others. Everyone votes for two senators to represent each state all equal in this regard.

The reason we have so few voting is elections is not because of lack of choice it is because of lack of caring.

It is true that green party and libertarians will probably never gain federal position but that does not mean they will be without representation. They can achieve success at a local and state level.

I posted an alternative but you ignored it, just like you ignore my question of who south dakota calls when the all powerful feds push them to far or take things that are not the feds to take.

You also refuse to admit you have no idea how the system works. The Senate is equal the house is by population those off setting each other.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

Proving my point that he was better off keeping his mouth shut....

Quote mavibobo:Well my last post did not post so here goes again. First off our system does not weigh some citizens heavier then others. Everyone votes for two senators to represent each state all equal in this regard.
I really don't have the patience to walk you through this over and over and over and over again. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DENY HARD NUMBERS AND REALITY NO MATTER WHAT.

The idea that one senator can represent 600,000 people and another senator represents 38 MILLION means that any CITIZEN in state 1 has about 70X the influence in the Senate than any CITIZEN from state 2. The result is a mere 18% of the population gets a 52% MAJORITY in the Senate. But in your mind, such as it is... that's NOT antidemocratic nor can permit minority rule...

And when the vote of any CITIZEN in Bush's 537 Florida vote lead weighed 1000X the vote of any CITIZEN in Gore's 537,000 national lead in the EC formula... there was nothing antidemocratic about that either... right Einstein?

Are there any right wingers out there that can help BooBoo with 2ed grade math?

Clearly not in this thread.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Still waiting for BooBoo to deal with the clear defects in our system... but I know he'll just deny they exist

In YOUR system the votes of citizens are UNEQUAL depending on a completely arbitrary criteria such as choice of state residence.

In YOUR system minority rule is possible, in the presidency, the Senate, the House and the amendment process

In YOUR system, while any citizen has many more attributes than merely their choice of state residence, regional interests are given more emphasis over all else.

In YOUR system where the winner takes all, the power of SOME citizens is amplified at the expense of others because in YOUR system the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters simply don't matter.

In YOUR system the votes of smaller political minority groups... Greens, libertarians ect that can't muster a majority in any district of state NEVER COUNT. Their consent to govern is stolen in a winner take all system. They can vote FOREVER and never get representation for their beliefs.

In YOUR system as the result of the above, the political spectrum is artificially narrowed and I'd argue has become intellectually braindead...

In YOUR system demographic changes between states are making the government more and more antidemocratic and more and more reform-proof.

Because of the above... vast numbers of citizens don't bother voting because unlike other systems THEIR VOTES ARE USUALLY MEANINGLESS. Voting rates in off year elections are usually a pathetic 35% in the US while other nations it's in the 80-90% range. OUR VERY SYSTEM TEACHES CITIZENS THAT VOTING IS NOT WORTH THE HASSLE. What's the point of voting if there are not enough choice, people REJECTED in elections can still be imposed on the nation, and the system is virtually reform proof etc?

I TRY TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE DEFECTS AND PROTECT RIGHTS... you just pretend you have some monopoly on protecting rights AND YOU IGNORE ALL THE ABOVE DEFECTS.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Proving my point that he was better off keeping his mouth shut....

Quote mavibobo:Well my last post did not post so here goes again. First off our system does not weigh some citizens heavier then others. Everyone votes for two senators to represent each state all equal in this regard.
I really don't have the patience to walk you through this over and over and over and over again. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DENY HARD NUMBERS AND REALITY NO MATTER WHAT.

The idea that one senator can represent 600,000 people and another senator represents 38 MILLION means that any CITIZEN in state 1 has about 70X the influence in the Senate than any CITIZEN from state 2. The result is a mere 18% of the population gets a 52% MAJORITY in the Senate. But in your mind, such as it is... that's NOT antidemocratic nor can permit minority rule...

And when the vote of any CITIZEN in Bush's 537 Florida vote lead weighed 1000X the vote of any CITIZEN in Gore's 537,000 national lead in the EC formula... there was nothing antidemocratic about that either... right Einstein?

Are there any right wingers out there that can help BooBoo with 2ed grade math?

Clearly not in this thread.

Well ultrax you never stop amazing me, each state has two senators so if California with its 38 million residents votes no on a bill he gets one vote, just one. If the other California senator votes yes they both cancel out. Wyoming being the smallest by population gets two senators they represent 540 thousand they to only have two votes which means they are equal on the senate level if you want to count population as influence I guarantee that California senators representing 38 million people have more pull then wyoming. But we are not talking influence we are talking representation. The house is represented by population thus giving California way more influence than wyoming. Wyoming has a chance to stop bad laws in senate. I know I know you don't give a crap about states or their rights you want o hold up people. Even though the 38 million of California have no idea about life in wyoming. Yes wyoming is 65 percent urban but do you think life in l.a. is similar to life in a city with a population closer to 1/10 the size of l.a.

Again those 18 percent is still the smallest 26 states. But hey you believe that those states will never have anything in common with big states or have the knowledge to vote with big states and therfore we need to set up the senate by population so the large states get the majority vote. That way they can stop the dumb knuckle daggers in the small states from doing something stupid like voting for their interests.

And still you ignore my questions. I have answered your for the 5 page worth but you still do not understand

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Still waiting for BooBoo to deal with the clear defects in our system... but I know he'll just deny they exist

In YOUR system the votes of citizens are UNEQUAL depending on a completely arbitrary criteria such as choice of state residence.

In YOUR system minority rule is possible, in the presidency, the Senate, the House and the amendment process

In YOUR system, while any citizen has many more attributes than merely their choice of state residence, regional interests are given more emphasis over all else.

In YOUR system where the winner takes all, the power of SOME citizens is amplified at the expense of others because in YOUR system the votes of up to 49.9% of the voters simply don't matter.

In YOUR system the votes of smaller political minority groups... Greens, libertarians ect that can't muster a majority in any district of state NEVER COUNT. Their consent to govern is stolen in a winner take all system. They can vote FOREVER and never get representation for their beliefs.

In YOUR system as the result of the above, the political spectrum is artificially narrowed and I'd argue has become intellectually braindead...

In YOUR system demographic changes between states are making the government more and more antidemocratic and more and more reform-proof.

Because of the above... vast numbers of citizens don't bother voting because unlike other systems THEIR VOTES ARE USUALLY MEANINGLESS. Voting rates in off year elections are usually a pathetic 35% in the US while other nations it's in the 80-90% range. OUR VERY SYSTEM TEACHES CITIZENS THAT VOTING IS NOT WORTH THE HASSLE. What's the point of voting if there are not enough choice, people REJECTED in elections can still be imposed on the nation, and the system is virtually reform proof etc?

I TRY TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE DEFECTS AND PROTECT RIGHTS... you just pretend you have some monopoly on protecting rights AND YOU IGNORE ALL THE ABOVE DEFECTS.

I am not ignoring what you consider a defect I am ignoring your premise of your arguement. I understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your approach that is why i posted an alternative that you have so far ignored.

One new question do you think life in lost spring wyoming with a population of 4 is the same as new york city with its population of 8 million they are both urban?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:One new question do you think life in lost spring wyoming with a population of 4 is the same as new york city with its population of 8 million they are both urban?
What I believe is pretty simple... even if it will NEVER sink into that thick skull of yours. It's that EVERY CITIZEN'S VOTE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE, SHOULD WEIGH THE SAME.

NO CITIZEN... just because they choose to live in East Buttf***, should get a bigger vote than a citizen who chooses to live in NYC.

Obviously you think the residents of East Buttf*** are God's Chosen Ones... and therefore they are the ONLY worthy guardians of ALL human rights. Therefore everyone else must surrender some of their vote to those who "deserve" more power in the federal government.

What utter bullshit.

So much for equality under the law.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:But we are not talking influence we are talking representation. The house is represented by population thus giving California way more influence than wyoming.
And around and around and around this goes... because this entire discussion revolves around BooBoo's stupidity.

I'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME.

I do NOT care how states are represented. I CARE ABOUT HOW ANY GIVEN CITIZEN IS REPRESENTED.

No given citizen in CAL is EVER represented by all of CAL's House members in Congress. This is the BIG LIE we all learned in 4th grade. In reality any given citizen in Cal CAN ONLY VOTE FOR ONE HOUSE MEMBER... and even then up to 49.9% of the votes are tossed out in a winner take all system.

Please come back and post again when you FINALLY understand democratic principles as to what makes for truly democratic representative government... and when that principle is bastardized to permit minority rule.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo: I understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your approach that is why i posted an alternative that you have so far ignored.
Please BooBoo... in the two years you've posted here you've NEVER understood anything you disagree with. You just dismiss any argument or fact you find threatening.

You just assume anything you believe is simply God's Truth... even if you're caught in a bold face lie, as you were with the Disabled Seamans Act, you'll never confront the reality of your own intellectual dishonesty.

There's just no point having ANY discussion with someone who places their own delusions of infallibility over logic and hard facts.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo: I understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your approach that is why i posted an alternative that you have so far ignored.
Please BooBoo... in the two years you've posted here you've NEVER understood anything you disagree with. You just dismiss any argument or fact you find threatening.

You just assume anything you believe is simply God's Truth... even if you're caught in a bold face lie, as you were with the Disabled Seamans Act, you'll never confront the reality of your own intellectual dishonesty.

There's just no point having ANY discussion with someone who places their own delusions of infallibility over logic and hard facts.

the only one being intellectually dishonest here is you, in the disbaled seamen act i did not lie you just did not understand what i was saying. just like in this discussion. I reject that the votes of the citizens are weighted differently just because they live in different states. each state has 2 senators which is how the states are represented equally under the law. you on the other hand do not want the states to be represented giving the city of new york more votes then the bottom 7 states and the washington dc combined.

i know you do not care how the states are represented but can you see a problem with one city having more representatioon then 7 states. between new york city and los angles they could out vote almost half the country and that is just two cities.

do you see a problem with your approach yet? I doubt it you are stuck on your agenda.

and yet you still ignore my alternative and questions.

who does the state of wyoming turn to when the city of new york has more power then they do?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

Please BooBoo... in the two years you've posted here you've NEVER understood anything you disagree with. You just dismiss any argument or fact you find threatening.

You just assume anything you believe is simply God's Truth... even if you're caught in a bold face lie, as you were with the Disabled Seamans Act, you'll never confront the reality of your own intellectual dishonesty.

There's just no point having ANY discussion with someone who places their own delusions of infallibility over logic and hard facts.

the only one being intellectually dishonest here is you, in the disabled seamen act i did not lie you just did not understand what i was saying. just like in this discussion.

There you go lying AGAIN...

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-196054

The question then was how much power did the federal government have under the general welfare clauses... and I suggested it had to be broad since one of the first things Madison tried to do in the first days of the first Congress was pass a bill to set up a system of hospitals for disabled seamen. YOU claimed these hospitals were set up under military provisions in the Constitution. You told me to read the Act myself... I'd see you were telling the truth. YOU wrote....

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

Clearly YOU never read the Act and tried to "win" the debate by bluffing. So I posted the entire Act... http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-196112 it did NOT say what you claimed it said... and you've been lying about it ever since. The further proof your theory was wrong was because the next year Congress finally DID expand the hospital system enabling taxation of real sailors in the Navy to be included in this system... and there'd be no reason to do that if they were in the original Act. I posted that second Act here

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/constitutional-authority-1798-...

You again tried to sleaze out of it by saying General Welfare meant it had to apply to everyone equally. That standard is nowhere in the Constitution... and it STILL left you high and dry... having your theory for constitutional explanation for the authority behind the Disabled Seaman's Act shot down in flames... still denying the 1798 Act said NOTHING about the military, and ignoring the 1799 which clearly COULD have been set up under military provisions but, again, disproving your original claim.

I'm sorry you have such pathological low self-esteem that you felt then the need to lie to "win" a debate... and two years later you're still doing the same.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

Please BooBoo... in the two years you've posted here you've NEVER understood anything you disagree with. You just dismiss any argument or fact you find threatening.

You just assume anything you believe is simply God's Truth... even if you're caught in a bold face lie, as you were with the Disabled Seamans Act, you'll never confront the reality of your own intellectual dishonesty.

There's just no point having ANY discussion with someone who places their own delusions of infallibility over logic and hard facts.

the only one being intellectually dishonest here is you, in the disabled seamen act i did not lie you just did not understand what i was saying. just like in this discussion.

There you go lying AGAIN...

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-196054

The question then was how much power did the federal government have under the general welfare clauses... and I suggested it had to be broad since one of the first things Madison tried to do in the first days of the first Congress was pass a bill to set up a system of hospitals for disabled seamen. YOU claimed these hospitals were set up under military provisions in the Constitution. You told me to read the Act myself... I'd see you were telling the truth. YOU wrote....

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

Clearly YOU never read the Act and tried to "win" the debate by bluffing. So I posted the entire Act... http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-196112 it did NOT say what you claimed it said... and you've been lying about it ever since. The further proof your theory was wrong was because the next year Congress finally DID expand the hospital system enabling taxation of real sailors in the Navy to be included in this system... and there'd be no reason to do that if they were in the original Act. I posted that second Act here

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/constitutional-authority-1798-...

You again tried to sleaze out of it by saying General Welfare meant it had to apply to everyone equally. That standard is nowhere in the Constitution... and it STILL left you high and dry... having your theory for constitutional explanation for the authority behind the Disabled Seaman's Act shot down in flames... still denying the 1798 Act said NOTHING about the military, and ignoring the 1799 which clearly COULD have been set up under military provisions but, again, disproving your original claim.

I'm sorry you have such pathological low self-esteem that you felt then the need to lie to "win" a debate... and two years later you're still doing the same.

And where exactly did the sailors used on the revenue ships come from? Did these in coast guard and other sailors that ran commerce not pay tax? Did the sailors thar where on the revenue ships not use the hospital when they were injured? Did these same sailors not work on commerce ships once contract with navy was up?

Again you have no idea how the world works.

I hope answering these questions allows you to see you are not the authority on anything but breathing for yourself.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo: And where exactly did the sailors used on the revenue ships come from? Did these in coast guard and other sailors that ran commerce not pay tax? Did the sailors thar where on the revenue ships not use the hospital when they were injured? Did these same sailors not work on commerce ships once contract with navy was up? Again you have no idea how the world works. I hope answering these questions allows you to see you are not the authority on anything but breathing for yourself.

There you go AGAIN... thinking if you throw up enough bullsh*t you can sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught in a bold face lie.

You claimed the Disabled Seamans Act was based on the Constitution's military powers.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-195948

Then you wrote in post 41

READ THE BILL... or make a fool of myself.

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

IT WAS NEVER THERE. You LIED when you claimed it was. And you've spent the past two years like some 5 year old coming up with excuse and excuse so you don't have to admit you got caught in a lie.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo: And where exactly did the sailors used on the revenue ships come from? Did these in coast guard and other sailors that ran commerce not pay tax? Did the sailors thar where on the revenue ships not use the hospital when they were injured? Did these same sailors not work on commerce ships once contract with navy was up? Again you have no idea how the world works. I hope answering these questions allows you to see you are not the authority on anything but breathing for yourself.

There you go AGAIN... thinking if you throw up enough bullsh*t you can sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught in a bold face lie.

You claimed the Disabled Seamans Act was based on the Constitution's military powers.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-195948

Then you wrote in post 41

READ THE BILL... or make a fool of myself.

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

IT WAS NEVER THERE. You LIED when you claimed it was. And you've spent the past two years like some 5 year old coming up with excuse and excuse so you don't have to admit you got caught in a lie.

And for the record I said it was a huge overstep of the constitution but if any authorization was there it would be in the commerce clause. Where congress can set tariffs, regulations and rules when dealing with foreign commerce. You do realize merchant marines are not military right? I am not sure if you know this or not because you do not seem to understand that when the coast guard then called revenue ships needed people they hired them from the same docks as the commerce ships.

But we are a long way from the subject of this thread. But that does not matter to you, as long as you can feel like the big man.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

There you go AGAIN... thinking if you throw up enough bullsh*t you can sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught in a bold face lie.

You claimed the Disabled Seamans Act was based on the Constitution's military powers.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-195948

Then you wrote in post 41

READ THE BILL... or make a fool of myself.

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

IT WAS NEVER THERE. You LIED when you claimed it was. And you've spent the past two years like some 5 year old coming up with excuse and excuse so you don't have to admit you got caught in a lie.

And for the record I said it was a huge overstep of the constitution but if any authorization was there it would be in the commerce clause. Where congress can set tariffs, regulations and rules when dealing with foreign commerce. You do realize merchant marines are not military right? I am not sure if you know this or not because you do not seem to understand that when the coast guard then called revenue ships needed people they hired them from the same docks as the commerce ships. But we are a long way from the subject of this thread. But that does not matter to you, as long as you can feel like the big man.
Thanks for that amusing Orwellian rewrite of history!

Poor, poor Booboo. There you go AGAIN... trying to sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught lying... with more lies.

You can't have it both ways... to say, as you did two years ago, the Disabled Seamans Act was perfectly constitutional because it was based on the military powers granted the federal government in the Constitution... and now claim it was huge overstep... implying the DSA was unconstitutional. And now you're finally admitting the merchant sailors are NOT military... when before CLAIMING THEY WERE WAS CENTRAL TO YOUR CLAIM the DSA was based in military powers in the Constitution. It wasn't until later you moved the goal post to claim the DSA was based on the commerce clause. But that was NOT your original position which you're still trying to sleaze away from... that YOU LIED ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE DSA.

God FO.... I mean Booboo... your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, does it? Your bottom line is you'll never admit you got caught in a lie no matter how many times YOUR OWN WORDS PROVE IT. So your only hope to fool us... or perhaps deceive yourself, is to go round and round throwing up more bullsh*t....

Since you seem determined to post here no matter how many times you are rediscovered and rebanned... I think it's time for you to abandon Booboo... and create a new user name.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

There you go AGAIN... thinking if you throw up enough bullsh*t you can sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught in a bold face lie.

You claimed the Disabled Seamans Act was based on the Constitution's military powers.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/02/tax-rich#comment-195948

Then you wrote in post 41

READ THE BILL... or make a fool of myself.

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

IT WAS NEVER THERE. You LIED when you claimed it was. And you've spent the past two years like some 5 year old coming up with excuse and excuse so you don't have to admit you got caught in a lie.

And for the record I said it was a huge overstep of the constitution but if any authorization was there it would be in the commerce clause. Where congress can set tariffs, regulations and rules when dealing with foreign commerce. You do realize merchant marines are not military right? I am not sure if you know this or not because you do not seem to understand that when the coast guard then called revenue ships needed people they hired them from the same docks as the commerce ships. But we are a long way from the subject of this thread. But that does not matter to you, as long as you can feel like the big man.
Thanks for that amusing Orwellian rewrite of history!

Poor, poor Booboo. There you go AGAIN... trying to sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught lying... with more lies.

You can't have it both ways... to say, as you did two years ago, the Disabled Seamans Act was perfectly constitutional because it was based on the military powers granted the federal government in the Constitution... and now claim it was huge overstep... implying the DSA was unconstitutional. And now you're finally admitting the merchant sailors are NOT military... when before CLAIMING THEY WERE WAS CENTRAL TO YOUR CLAIM the DSA was based in military powers in the Constitution. It wasn't until later you moved the goal post to claim the DSA was based on the commerce clause. But that was NOT your original position which you're still trying to sleaze away from... that YOU LIED ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE DSA.

God FO.... I mean Booboo... your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, does it? Your bottom line is you'll never admit you got caught in a lie no matter how many times YOUR OWN WORDS PROVE IT. So your only hope to fool us... or perhaps deceive yourself, is to go round and round throwing up more bullsh*t....

Since you seem determined to post here no matter how many times you are rediscovered and rebanned... I think it's time for you to abandon Booboo... and create a new user name.

One more time for you in hopes you learn. Here goes, under the commerce e clause they taxed sailors in order to pay for health care. The same sailors could and did work on or for the navy they where allowed to use the hospitals paid for by their taxes. The government then expanded the bill to cover all military. Either way the hospitals where paid for by the same sailors be it either military from former commercial or commercial to military.

Your lack of intellect is astounding maybe you should create a new user name.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:Thanks for that amusing Orwellian rewrite of history!

Poor, poor Booboo. There you go AGAIN... trying to sleaze your way out of admitting you got caught lying... with more lies.

You can't have it both ways... to say, as you did two years ago, the Disabled Seamans Act was perfectly constitutional because it was based on the military powers granted the federal government in the Constitution... and now claim it was huge overstep... implying the DSA was unconstitutional. And now you're finally admitting the merchant sailors are NOT military... when before CLAIMING THEY WERE WAS CENTRAL TO YOUR CLAIM the DSA was based in military powers in the Constitution. It wasn't until later you moved the goal post to claim the DSA was based on the commerce clause. But that was NOT your original position which you're still trying to sleaze away from... that YOU LIED ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE DSA.

God FO.... I mean Booboo... your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, does it? Your bottom line is you'll never admit you got caught in a lie no matter how many times YOUR OWN WORDS PROVE IT. So your only hope to fool us... or perhaps deceive yourself, is to go round and round throwing up more bullsh*t....

Since you seem determined to post here no matter how many times you are rediscovered and rebanned... I think it's time for you to abandon Booboo... and create a new user name.

One more time for you in hopes you learn.
You're a hoot BooBoo... especially when you believe your ever changing "explanations" will get you off the hook for all the foolish things you've already said.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Trump's Lies Are Killing Us

Thom plus logo Donald Trump keeps insisting in his rallies, as he did last night, that he has lowered prescription drug prices, is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and is improving Medicare. While everybody knows that he lies a lot, these are among the most pernicious lies.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system