From 1789 Till 1917

[80zephyr]

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

lol, you people are so fucking delusional that it borders on depressing.

Could we legally deny the right to vote to anyone who wants to deny poor people the right to vote?

I don't know. Personally, I don't know why felons aren't allowed to vote. Could we deny others the right? Of course, since we are doing it already.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

 

[ricechickie]

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Yes, which is why we are not a democracy, and never have been.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

Who composes the 'mob'?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

Enlightenment is in the mind of the beholder. Tolerance can often pollute to the point of damage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Yes, which is why we are not a democracy, and never have been.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

By that silly measure, every governor of every state in the Union is elected by 'mob rule'.

Why don't you object to that?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

Ignorance.

The people elect the state electors. The states elect the president. That is the way of things.

Did your public school not cover this in your 3rd grade class?

 

[FJO]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Yes, which is why we are not a democracy, and never have been.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

By that silly measure, every governor of every state in the Union is elected by 'mob rule'.

Why don't you object to that?

A state is NOT a union/confederation of cities/counties.

Your analogy therefore, does not aplly.

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

Since we are NOT a democracy, it makes perfect sense. Basically, the states are 50 "countries" that each have one vote for president. And the reason its usually "winner take all" because that was the will of the people in that state.

If the US would have tried to form any other way, our country would have never happened.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

You are incorrect. The loser did not win.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

I'm not hoping for anything. I am simply stating facts. Could our country limit the right to vote?

Without question, the answer is yes.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Yes, which is why we are not a democracy, and never have been.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

Who composes the 'mob'?

Alexis de Tocqueville on the Tyranny of the Majority | EDSITEment

Mark

 

[my2¢]

The Senate had a simple majority rule.

The model is restored.

I haven't read all the posts so perhaps somebody already pointed out for the model to be restored completely filibusters should be allowed to go on indefinitely. What changed in 1917 is that a 2/3 vote could end a filibuster. This was later changed to 3/5's.

U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture

 

[FJO]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

In a "democracy" the minority has no voice. In a republic, such as the United States, all minorities, regardless how repulsive and repugnant they are, they DO have a voice. Like a naked parades. Like a congressional caucus. Like a loud crowd at colleges throwing pies at speakers they don't agree with. Like thugs with billy clubs standing at voting stations. Like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi or Upchuck Shumer. Like Chris Matthews or Don Lemmon.

Your disdain of the Electoral College indicates that you regard the Founding Fathers as deplorable clowns. As you and your ilk regards the duly and lawfully elected Commander-In-Chief.

Well, fuck you.

 

[FJO]

The Senate had a simple majority rule.

The model is restored.

I haven't read all the posts so perhaps somebody already pointed out for the model to be restored completely filibusters should be allowed to go on indefinitely. What changed in 1917 is that a 2/3 vote could end a filibuster. This was later changed to 3/5's.

U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture

Bill was first introduced by Senator Phillip Buster.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

Ignorance.

The people elect the state electors. The states elect the president. That is the way of things.

Did your public school not cover this in your 3rd grade class?

So? What is is not necessarily what is right. The electoral college came about at the same time it was determined that only white men of property should vote.

Oh wait, you like both ideas...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

In a "democracy" the minority has no voice. In a republic, such as the United States, all minorities, regardless how repulsive and repugnant they are, they DO have a voice. Like a naked parades. Like a congressional caucus. Like a loud crowd at colleges throwing pies at speakers they don't agree with. Like thugs with billy clubs standing at voting stations. Like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi or Upchuck Shumer. Like Chris Matthews or Don Lemmon.

Your disdain of the Electoral College indicates that you regard the Founding Fathers as deplorable clowns. As you and your ilk regards the duly and lawfully elected Commander-In-Chief.

Well, fuck you.

When the minority rules, you have an oligarchy or a monarchy or the like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

I'm not hoping for anything. I am simply stating facts. Could our country limit the right to vote?

Without question, the answer is yes.

Mark

Our country could bring back the slavery of black people if there were enough votes for it.

What's your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

In a "democracy" the minority has no voice. In a republic, such as the United States, all minorities, regardless how repulsive and repugnant they are, they DO have a voice. Like a naked parades. Like a congressional caucus. Like a loud crowd at colleges throwing pies at speakers they don't agree with. Like thugs with billy clubs standing at voting stations. Like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi or Upchuck Shumer. Like Chris Matthews or Don Lemmon.

Your disdain of the Electoral College indicates that you regard the Founding Fathers as deplorable clowns. As you and your ilk regards the duly and lawfully elected Commander-In-Chief.

Well, fuck you.

Why would the minority in a democracy have no voice? WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[80zephyr]

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

That is not democracy. In a democracy, the power resides with the People. The People wanted Clinton as president. The electoral college, an antiquated, frankly weird system of compiling the peoples' vote,

rearranges the will of the People into an odd, illogical, unjustifiable configuration that enables, on occasion, the loser to win.

That makes no sense. That has no merit.

Ignorance.

The people elect the state electors. The states elect the president. That is the way of things.

Did your public school not cover this in your 3rd grade class?

So? What is is not necessarily what is right. The electoral college came about at the same time it was determined that only white men of property should vote.

Oh wait, you like both ideas...

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

So, you use an example of America moving toward more equal rights, tolerance, and enlightenment, and use it to bolster your argument that we could go the opposite way.

Keep hoping, I guess.

I'm not hoping for anything. I am simply stating facts. Could our country limit the right to vote?

Without question, the answer is yes.

Mark

Our country could bring back the slavery of black people if there were enough votes for it.

What's your point?

My point is, is that you are saying it can't happen. It can, as history shows us.

Mark