So is having a Cons ution. Let's make this majority rules, whatever that majority decides, including all of your liberty and be done with it.
Hey, maybe those old white dudes were on to something.
I told you after Massachusetts...this isn't about Democrats or Republicans, it's about anti-in bency and anti-establishment...the American People want to 'kick the bums out', but the Supreme Court is saying, Corporations have just as much rights as you, even more because it has the money to push it's agenda....where it the teabagger outrage?
No, what is re ed is the passage of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment should be repealed.
I know questioning the cons ution is worse than going against the bible here, but once in a while it's full of . I don't see what's so crazy about giving every voter equal power in deciding the representatives who make law. The electoral college and the laws for electing a president are ridiculous too. You can't tell me you agree with the House electing the president in the event there's a 3rd party candidate strong enough to keep anyone from getting a majority of the electoral votes.
If you mean letting governors appoint senators, I completely agree that should be removed.
Sure, do away with the antiquated Cons ution and make our lives subject to majority rule. Why be bound by the ancients? How much could be accomplished if we didn't worry about individual liberty! So exciting.
Way to dodge a question with sarcasm.
The problem is how we have given congress the power. Every time we have elections, we, as a people, let them buy our freedom, by electing people who promise things the states are responsible for. Why do people keep voting for the "nanny state?"
As a people, it's our own fault.
Someone so gung-ho for blowing billions of dollars in useless wars should never criticize anyone about nanny states.
Sarcasm is appropriate. The president was never meant to be the emperor of our lives. So what if the House Subcommittee on the Electoral College elects a president? I know, life is more meaningful if you're at the bottom of the pyramid.
Come to think of it, the Cons ution, as well as the Bill of Rights, are outdated. How much more effective the federal government would be if we did away with all that old bull ? I mean, states, and rights and all that ? Damn.
As someone who constantly complains about Democrats and Republicans I can't see why you like how our system neuters third parties in presidential elections.
Please keep in mind that gun-ho is not how I am about war. Consider that financing war is addressed in the cons ution. Redistribution of wealth isn't.
Try to see me in that perspective instead. As someone who believes in the cons ution, or freedoms, and that we should keep more of our money that the government lets us.
Look at China, they got their together because the people, I mean, the individual people, aren't . It's the nation that matters, man. That's what's important.
ROFL. As if.
What part of the Cons ution does that? Perhaps the two dominant political parties of the age have, but that do ent has not.
Every Man a King, Mofos! the Cons ution.
Where the are you going with this? Devaluing an individual's vote is your way to empower individuals?
So you think there's ever a chance the house is going to elect a third party candidate if no one pulls 270 electoral votes?
What's more important, a vote for politicians or your rights? My God.
Which, of course, assumes that we're dealing with two parties. Further, so what? It's just the presidency. We're not electing an emperor.
Because I'm obviously talking about scrapping everything in the cons ution?
Seriously, what's the point of voting for a third party candidate for president? So Republicans and Democrats can pick one of their own and disregard our votes if the third party guy is at all successful in making it a legit 3-way race?
I don't get the so-what part either. The power of 17 senate votes and 72 house votes via the veto isn't something to be concerned about?
Then what's the import of doing away with equal representation in the Senate?
As for parties, well, perhaps parties are about more than just a presidential race.
What about that? Why don't we want one branch to check the other? Is the goal here to maximize national power or individual liberty?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
