|
|
11-18-2022, 01:51 AM
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,107
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtb
We do not live in a pure democracy. A pure democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Our country was founded as a constitutional republic with elements of democracy. Half of our legislative branch is a representative democracy, I think it was brilliant of our founding fathers to create a portion of our government that represents all states equally. We are after all, the United States of America. Without the Senate, residents of small states would feel disenfranchised pretty quickly.
Do you think the United Nations should apportion voting power according to nations' populations?
|
Instead, residents of large states are effectively disenfranchised. In case you have forgotten, nations are sovereign entities. The UN can suggest, it can cajole, it can wish, but it can enforce no laws or edicts. The states, on the other hand, are subject to the Federal Government as enumerated in the Constitution. For example, we currently have no national law on abortion. if, hopefully when, Congress passes a law codifying the right to an abortion, no state will be able to pass any laws prohibiting abortion.
Both the Senate and the House are Representative Democracies. The only difference is in what they Represent.
As I said before, the creation of National Political parties has changed the game completely. Policy is no longer debated among 50 states, but among two national political parties
ETA: Neither Wolves nor Sheep can vote on anything, but who's to say there weren't more sheep at that meeting.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
Last edited by mostpost; 11-18-2022 at 01:54 AM.
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 09:38 AM
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Western NY
Posts: 5,345
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
Instead, residents of large states are effectively disenfranchised. In case you have forgotten, nations are sovereign entities. The UN can suggest, it can cajole, it can wish, but it can enforce no laws or edicts. The states, on the other hand, are subject to the Federal Government as enumerated in the Constitution. For example, we currently have no national law on abortion. if, hopefully when, Congress passes a law codifying the right to an abortion, no state will be able to pass any laws prohibiting abortion.
Both the Senate and the House are Representative Democracies. The only difference is in what they Represent.
As I said before, the creation of National Political parties has changed the game completely. Policy is no longer debated among 50 states, but among two national political parties
ETA: Neither Wolves nor Sheep can vote on anything, but who's to say there weren't more sheep at that meeting.
|
You dodged my question, have a poor understanding of states' rights and obviously do not understand what a metaphor is.
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 10:28 AM
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
You are certifiable. Unlike Trump's fake electors. There is a reason you think everyone is corrupt. it is because you are corrupt.
Here is what your Blaze link proves: It proves that the Democratic Attorney General of Pennsylvania found election fraud-not voter fraud-in the Democratic Primary and did not look the other way. It proves the fraudsters were quite incompetent and lazy, forging the same names numerous times.
It proves that while fraud can happen it is rare-1000 signatures out of millions of petition signatures-all by one man. and, hundreds of candidates sbmitted nominating petitions with no forged signatures.
|
Yes, there are hundreds of biblical reasons why I believe that mankind is corrupt (Mat 7:11 Rom 3:10, 23; Ps 58:3; 64:6; Jer 17:9, etc., etc., etc.). Not only that but the corrupt world system itself, ironically, bears witness to this biblical truth because it needed to establish the [unwritten] universal Law of Distrust as the basis for transacting business in both the private and public spheres of life, otherwise the world would not be able to function. In other words, the world system doesn't exactly operate on the honor system, and anyone with an IQ higher than his shoelace size would naturally be led to wonder why that is. Instead, the people of this world system demand of others unknown to them that they prove all their claims.
Another very closely related empirical fact to the above statement is that all laws (God's and man's) are not made for godly, righteous people but rather for all manner of lawbreakers and rebels (1Tim 1:8-11)? Why would anyone need to make laws if all of us were righteous men and women?
But since you obviously have such high moral opinion of yourself and your fellow man, perhaps you'll be comforted to know that you will have an awful lot of company in the realm of the Outer Darkness to which you will be cast (Mat 8:12; 22:13; 25:30) after you die. After all, Jesus did not come into this world to die for the [self]-righteous, but rather for sinners (Lk 5:32). You and billions like you evidently don't believe you need his sacrificial, atoning work on the Cross. And that mistake, sir, will cost you very big. In fact, it'll take you and all your like-minded comrades all eternity to pay the sin debt that Christ paid but that you spurned in this life.
Finally, why do you want to quibble between election fraud and voter fraud? Are not both illegal? Are not both acts committed to try to procure a desired outcome?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 11:17 AM
|
#64
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
The Constitution has served us well longer than most other countries.
Until recently, when one party decided to ignore it.
The FF were forsighted enough to install multiple checks and balances the prevent just what mostie describes.
Consider if there were no senate, the new House could outlaw all abortions period.
If there were only the House, then one party would always be under-represented.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 12:09 PM
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
The Constitution has served us well longer than most other countries.
Until recently, when one party decided to ignore it.
The FF were forsighted enough to install multiple checks and balances the prevent just what mostie describes.
Consider if there were no senate, the new House could outlaw all abortions period.
If there were only the House, then one party would always be under-represented.
|
How so?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 12:56 PM
|
#66
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
How so?
|
Because the majority party would always have their way, ala Obama Care.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 01:09 PM
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Because the majority party would always have their way, ala Obama Care.
|
Well...what happens when the majority party owns both houses?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 04:21 PM
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
I agree, but I am not sure why you think the Senate is dumb. What I think is that the Senate is not representative democracy. California has 80 times the population of Wyoming. Yet each state has two votes in the Senate. lest you think I'm making a political argument, Texas has 45 times as many people as Vermont, but both states have 2 votes. Essentially, a citizen of Wyoming has 80 times the power of a citizen of California.
It's important to remember that at the time the Constitution was written there were no organized political parties in America. So, the founders were more concerned with keeping a balance among the states rather than opposing factions which transcended boundaries.
|
Yes states are important and there's supposed to be a balance. Unfortunately one party really wants to make a federal case out of everything to push their opinions onto everyone else and not let the other states have a say. Why liberals can't just live in their utopias and leave everyone else alone is beyond me. Want universal health care? Get if from your state. Want abortion? Find your state capital and get lobbying.
And guess what? You could pay for your goodies because the feds wouldn't need to take all of the taxes. Your state can tax as you see fit for whatever it is you think the government should do for you.
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 04:32 PM
|
#69
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Well...what happens when the majority party owns both houses?
|
It can happen but less likey. With only the House, it is always the case.
And the Senate has the 2/3 rule for some types of bills, plus the filibuster.
It is a check and balance.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 04:54 PM
|
#70
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lex
Yes states are important and there's supposed to be a balance. Unfortunately one party really wants to make a federal case out of everything to push their opinions onto everyone else and not let the other states have a say. Why liberals can't just live in their utopias and leave everyone else alone is beyond me. Want universal health care? Get if from your state. Want abortion? Find your state capital and get lobbying.
And guess what? You could pay for your goodies because the feds wouldn't need to take all of the taxes. Your state can tax as you see fit for whatever it is you think the government should do for you.
|
Oh, you'll love what is next. The Senate just passed the "Respect for Marriage" Act. And it gets even better: 12 RINOs supported it. The bill gives national legality to same sex marriage but says absolutely nothing about the traditional institution of marriage between one male and one female. In fact, there are very far reaching implications to this bill with respect to religious freedom.
Liberals insist on forcing their immoralities on the entire country!
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|