It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now it's only a waiting game

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

See above, or better yet, might be time to open a book.




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Why should the many always overrule the few?

I don't understand how the left cares so much for minorities and their rights ... right up until we discuss the electoral college which is an institution designed specifically to do that.


I don't have a good answer for that. There are merits to both sides, I'm just calling out disingenuous behavior when it benefits one side exclusively, whereas the situation reversed would have engendered the exact same arguments from opposite sides.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't owe you anything, especially a basics course in civics and government.


You don't owe anyone anything here, yet you spend hours and hours freely giving your time to folks you supposedly dislike, so I'm failing to see the issue here.

Is it possible you don't have the basic understanding to explain it simply?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




You don't owe anyone anything here, yet you spend hours and hours freely giving your time to folks you supposedly dislike, so I'm failing to see the issue here.


Oh, another one with a crush? What I spend my time doing is of note and importance to you, why? Whether I like or dislike anyone on this site is relevant and provable how?

Ok, fine. here is your source:
www.ducksters.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer




You don't owe anyone anything here, yet you spend hours and hours freely giving your time to folks you supposedly dislike, so I'm failing to see the issue here.


Oh, another one with a crush? What I spend my time doing is of note and importance to you, why? Whether I like or dislike anyone on this site is relevant and provable how?

Ok, fine. here is your source:
www.ducksters.com...


I'm not sure I could have a crush on someone with a Dark Elf avatar....(back to the underdark with you!).

Its not important to me, just merely an observation based on your responses to the more liberal members here on ATS. Feel free to correct me if you feel misrepresented.

The query I posed to you is which is better, not which do we have (hint, there isn't an answer, its a subjective question).
edit on 02pm19fpmFri, 11 Jan 2019 13:06:02 -0600America/ChicagoFri, 11 Jan 2019 13:06:02 -0600 by Wayfarer because: clarity



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Why should the many always overrule the few?

I don't understand how the left cares so much for minorities and their rights ... right up until we discuss the electoral college which is an institution designed specifically to do that.


Exactly. Democracy and the ‘popular vote’ totally ignore minorities and rights.
The issue is, liberals seem to think that it’s perfectly acceptable to oppress certain groups and trample all over their rights. Which is why they are screaming for the country to become a democracy, which it has NEVER been.
Mob rule mentality went out the window the moment the constitution was signed.

Democracy is an inferior system of governance
The United States is not and has never been a democracy.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Maybe I misunderstood your question:



Well, at the very least you owe us a token explanation for why the few should rule the many.



The electoral college prevents this. The proof is exactly what happened in the 2016 elections where the vast majorities were on the coasts. You may not like the results this time. However it is the best form we have thus far.

I'm open to hearing some other theories on better governance. Democracy for PotUS is not it.




I'm not sure I could have a crush on someone with a Dark Elf avatar.


R A C I S T ! !



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't owe you anything, especially a basics course in civics and government.


Gotcha, you don’t have anything



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't owe you anything, especially a basics course in civics and government.


Gotcha, you don’t have anything


Yep, that must be it.

243 years of history be damned.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

Maybe I misunderstood your question:



Well, at the very least you owe us a token explanation for why the few should rule the many.



The electoral college prevents this. The proof is exactly what happened in the 2016 elections where the vast majorities were on the coasts. You may not like the results this time. However it is the best form we have thus far.

I'm open to hearing some other theories on better governance. Democracy for PotUS is not it.




I'm not sure I could have a crush on someone with a Dark Elf avatar.


R A C I S T ! !


I'm really no more intelligent or clever than the founding fathers (to be honest I'm probably orders of magnitude beneath their intellects), but the system isn't perfect (insomuch as all sides feel adequately represented). I understand the purpose and value of the Electoral system as it relates to protecting minorities, but at the same time is there some break-point at which the system becomes ridiculous?

As a hypothetical, if the Electoral College became 'gerrymandered' in a sense wherein lets say 20 million folks decide the presidency against the votes of 200 million folks, is there a problem with the system? My gut says yes, and although we're not there yet, I don't doubt either political party would like to rig the system to such a degree that only a token number of voters were required to stay in power....

I really can't think of a better way to handle it, but I also don't think that my own inability/inadequacy to devise an alternative is the nail in the coffin for what could be a better system.
edit on 02pm19fpmFri, 11 Jan 2019 13:20:41 -0600America/ChicagoFri, 11 Jan 2019 13:20:41 -0600 by Wayfarer because: grammar



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

You said

“I understand the purpose and value of the Electoral system as it relates to protecting minorities, but at the same time is there some break-point at which the system becomes ridiculous. “

The answer is “yes”.
When the electoral system doesn’t benifit liberals for one single election cycle. That’s the point where the electoral system becomes ‘ridiculous’.

Right?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I too wouldn't consider myself smart enough to propose sweeping change to the way our country is governed. That gives one the ability to surely hear out new ideas should they come about.

Is there one? True democracy is not it and exactly why we have the system in place that we do. Again, I'm all ears for something better.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: Wayfarer


When the electoral system doesn’t benifit liberals for one single election cycle. That’s the point where the electoral system becomes ‘ridiculous’.

Right?


I think you are trying to infer a level of hyperbole upon my words that doesn't exist. My hypothetical was meant to assume an extreme case, likely after some period of time.

I'm not butthurt that Trump won the presidency via the electoral college over the popular vote. I'm merely curiously entertaining suppositions as to what an extremely negative outcome might look like and if there are any reasonable recommendations from anyone here.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   

I don't have a good answer for that. There are merits to both sides, I'm just calling out disingenuous behavior when it benefits one side exclusively, whereas the situation reversed would have engendered the exact same arguments from opposite sides.


What I have observed is that people only care about the rights of minorities when they think it gets them something they want so they can afford to be generous.

In the case of the EC, it's a system. It doesn't care which side is the minority, so I have observed that the system is awesome when it works in your favor, and it is terribly and outdated when it does not.

In the case of favoring minorities and championing their causes, I have observed that this always comes attached to some policy position that the political group in question holds dear. This will protect the rights of minority A because ... (whether it will or not) or they think it will buy them favor with that group (votes) and they figure that whatever minority A wants won't affect them at all but instead be someone else's problem (usually taxpayers').

They aren't actually doing it because they care one bit about minority A, so protecting minority rights is generally a fancy label for "getting what we want" (usually more power) and not anything at all about making minority A's life any better or worse than it was before.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


the argument cannot be made that the Dems are doing nothing to get the government back up and running.

Oh, yes it can.

The Democrats have dug in on an ultimatum. The last meeting with Trump ended with his offering to sign bills (which he has not gotten yet) to start up the government, if he could get some negotiation later about the wall (a mistake itself IMHO; that's what happened with Reagan). He posed that possibility to Pelosi and she simply replied "No."

That is not negotiation.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


What you're saying is, if the those gosh darn Democrats just completely capitulate and give Trump everything he wants, then this whole thing would just end, its really just so shuckey duckey simple!

Well, it's only fair.

What you're saying is, if Trump and those gosh darn Republicans just completely capitulate and give the Democrats everything they want, then this whole thing would just end, its really just so shuckey duckey simple!

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


There is grey in the black and white world you live in.

Yes, there is. We call extreme dark grey with no white in it "black."

If you don't want the border secure, you want it open. At least be adult enough to admit it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254


the argument cannot be made that the Dems are doing nothing to get the government back up and running.

Oh, yes it can.

The Democrats have dug in on an ultimatum. The last meeting with Trump ended with his offering to sign bills (which he has not gotten yet) to start up the government, if he could get some negotiation later about the wall (a mistake itself IMHO; that's what happened with Reagan). He posed that possibility to Pelosi and she simply replied "No."

That is not negotiation.

TheRedneck


Well you’re right about one thing this isn’t anyway to negotiate but it is Trump to blame.

Trump walked in and said “Are you going to give me my walk?”

Pelosi says “No”

Trump throughs a temper tantrum and walks out.

He didn’t say anything like “What will it take for you to give me the wall?” Or “How about we do x or y and bundle the wall in with that?” Nope, just like a toddler that doesn’t get the toy that he wants throwing a fit in Wal-Mart. So much for the deal master....

Plus, it was reported today that Graham was working with the dems on a DACA/Wall bundle and Trump said no to that. It really is Trump. He wants his wall and is not willing to negotiate.

This is all on Trump. He wanted it, he got it and now he will not negotiate to end it.

link
edit on 11-1-2019 by BlackJackal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254


the argument cannot be made that the Dems are doing nothing to get the government back up and running.


Oh, yes it can.

The Democrats have dug in on an ultimatum. The last meeting with Trump ended with his offering to sign bills (which he has not gotten yet) to start up the government, if he could get some negotiation later about the wall (a mistake itself IMHO; that's what happened with Reagan). He posed that possibility to Pelosi and she simply replied "No."

That is not negotiation.

TheRedneck


Well you’re right about one thing this isn’t anyway to negotiate but it is Trump to blame.

Trump walked in and said “Are you going to give me my walk?”

Pelosi says “No”

Trump throughs a temper tantrum and walks out.

He didn’t say anything like “What will it take for you to give me the wall?” Or “How about we do x or y and bundle the wall in with that?” Nope, just like a toddler that doesn’t get the toy that he wants throwing a fit in Wal-Mart. So much for the deal master....

Plus, it was reported today that Graham was working with the dems on a DACA/Wall bundle and Trump said no to that. It really is Trump. He wants his wall and is not willing to negotiate.

This is all on Trump. He wanted it, he got it and now he will not negotiate to end it.

link



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't owe you anything, especially a basics course in civics and government.


Gotcha, you don’t have anything


Yep, that must be it.

243 years of history be damned.


Hmmmm. Slavery was legal when the constitution was originally written I suppose we should reinstate that. Or what about banning women from voting? Or a host of other things.

The point is that just because it worked in the past is no argument that it works or is needed now.

For example, I’m pretty sure based off your posting history that you would like to repeal birthright citizenship, change the constitution to prevent the burning of the American flag, require a balanced budget, outlaws gay marriage or outlawing abortion.

If my argument against any of those was x number of years be damned you would find that lacking as well.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join