From 1789 Till 1917

[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.

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?

With the electoral collage, Rhode Island and Montana have a voice. Without it, they may as well stay home.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

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

Well, you're quite the conservative optimist if you believe there's a realistic chance that someday the poor will lose the right to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

With the electoral collage, Rhode Island and Montana have a voice. Without it, they may as well stay home.

Mark

With the electoral college, the conservatives in California might as well stay home.

 

[longknife]

The filibuster vote of 60 was a Dimbocrap invention to allow them to run rough shod over the GOP. Before that, Senators could take to the floor to speak their views without ignorant rules. It was the way the constitution called for it to be.

The basis has been restored.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant. It's just not going to happen, no matter how much you wish for it in your twisted hateful heart.

Your delusions are nothing more than that - and they reveal exactly the person you are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

I didn't give my kid a vote concerning his allowance either.

Keep digging.

You should suggest tour delusions to your representatives - I'm sure their staffers could do with a laugh.

 

[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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

 

[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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

I didn't give my kid a vote concerning his allowance either.

Keep digging.

You should suggest tour delusions to your representatives - I'm sure their staffers could do with a laugh.

Hmmm. Tour delusions.

I dunno. Both my reps are Democrats. They might bite at a chance to visit Atlantis, or Shangri-La.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

 

[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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

The Constitution is very relevant and its protection of voting rights is one of its most important functions.

 

[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.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

If the Constitution was irrelevant, then women would not have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

 

[usmbguest5318]

From 1789 Till 1917....The Senate had a simple majority rule.

The model is restored.

That is so, but from 1789 to 1917 there also was no such thing as a cloture vote that could end a filibuster. From 1789 to 1806 there was no such thing as a filibuster either.

So now that only a simple majority is needed, fine, remove the cloture vote procedure too. I bet Republicans won't do that too; they want to have their cake and eat it too. We'll see how that works out for them should they lose their majority.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

It applies as if it's still 1789, save for amendments. It's "interpretation" altogether that is irrelevant. It says what it says.

If you don't like it, you know the drill.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

The Constitution is very relevant and its protection of voting rights is one of its most important functions.

You are one of the most confused individuals I have ever encountered.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the dems eliminated the filibuster out of political convenience it proved that they were willing to change the rules when it suited their agenda. The filibuster died that day. The dems will try and hide behind the fact they did not extend it to the SCOTUS but in the end they left the republicans with little choice - clearly the dems would ignore the 60 vote rule when they wanted and it would not behoove the right to tie one hand behind their back out of principal.

The filibuster remains for law as of today but that is in name only - it will be expelled the instant the majority party sees a gain in doing so. I said it was over when Reid pulled this idiocy the first time and the naysayers were determined to bleet that it only extended to appointments in lower courts. The inevitable outcome here should have been glaringly obvious.

You DO realize that filibuster isn't a law, and never has been, don't you? It's always been merely a procedural rule, subject to change by the Senate whenever they felt like it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

It applies as if it's still 1789, save for amendments. It's "interpretation" altogether that is irrelevant. It says what it says.

If you don't like it, you know the drill.

You are welcome to your worthless opinion.

But everything you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

 

[12icer]

To the detriment of the system as a whole. Now, the minority party has literally no say in anything - a majority can simply run roughshod over them. When the dems regain control, and regain control they will, those celebrating this change now will lament it.

dimshitscum NEVER play by the rules, so it is just that the Republicans said hell it only stops us because they never play fair anyway. It MADE No difference, they would have done it anyway, and have proved that many times over. The dimshits have NO honor, or sense of fair play.

 

[12icer]

You are welcome to your worthless opinion.

But everything you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

Some people can read and decipher the English language used to Pen the Constitution, and it's Amendments themselves, of course they are not liberals.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

I don't have to show any "relevant text", because the text is irrelevant.

I know you guys all find the Constitution irrelevant, but the fact is that it is not.

I know you guys think you can read our constitution as if it was still 1789, but the fact is your interpretation is what's irrelevant here.

It applies as if it's still 1789, save for amendments. It's "interpretation" altogether that is irrelevant. It says what it says.

If you don't like it, you know the drill.

You are welcome to your worthless opinion.

But everything you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

Nah. I've actually read the thing numerous times.

 

[80zephyr]

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...

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

Well, you're quite the conservative optimist if you believe there's a realistic chance that someday the poor will lose the right to vote.

I have seen many things in my life that at one time I believed had no chance of happening.

Nothing would surprise me.

Mark