nope, the Senate's 2-per state was the bone thrown to the low-population states so they could have as many Senators as the high-pop states.
The EC was specifically designed as a safety check, to override the FF-detested "populus" in case those losers popularly voted in a Pres the FFs wouldn't like.
Federalist No. 39:
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
Did some reading, and frankly we're both wrong. Slavery is probably a primary motivator in having the states rather than the people choose the pres.
Well I see this ended any discussion Qhris was pretending to have.
How do you expect people to respond to the childish GND originally put forth by the "justice democrats"?
GND isn't the only proposal on their platform. I mean, I find a trillion per year spent on the military childish, but I'll admit when a conservative politician has a blind squirrel moment and actually comes up with reasonable policy.
A reasonable policy for what?
1T is a ton of money. What would the GND cost!
Anything
Don't know. But at least the GND is toward something beneficial rather than killing goat farmers.
I was just curious if you were expecting a Conservative to come up with some kind of counter-policy to the ridiculous GND and the "threat" of "climate change." After all we only have 12 more years right?
To elaborate, there's only one thing conservatives in general are reasonable about, and that's their criticism toward PC/Outrage culture. That said, conservatives can be just as "snowflake" if you criticize Christianity, the military, the police, or a some cultural tradition ("Libruls are having War on Christmas!" Happy Holidays! Grrrrrrrr!")
I asked you what they were going to replace Obamacare with.
You yourself.
Conservatives allow an open forum. Liberals want a safe space to designate what they don't agree with as hate speech, and ban users or take the platform hostage.
No. Humanity won't end in even 1000 years. Where climate change is concerning is that our current infrastructure conflicts with consequences climate change is theorized to eventually cause (i.e. rising sea levels and coastal cities).
I don't expect conservatives to side with scientific fact in general. I mean, feel free to prove to me the scientific consensus on the matter is some leftist conspiracy funded by George Soros.
Radical Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (I like to call her Sandy) says we only have 12 years left. Refer to the "Who is George Soros?" thread for FACTS on George Soros. ; )
And as I said, I agree with conservatives challenging this mentality. Though, Nazism had NO place in any forum. Nazism or Ethno-nationalism aren't "different points of view," like the different points of view you and I have on immigration. They are genocidal ideologies whose end game is murder or displacement of human beings. So yes, gots like Richard Spencer deserve to be banned from speaking on college campuses.
Here’s the actual text of the GND. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text
I think the 10 year timeframe is unrealistic. Other than that, I think most of it sounds pretty reasonable to me. Which specific parts are childish in your opinion?
The GND is re ed and doesn't deserve any kind of response from the right.
Lol the guy who runs away whenever his gets pushed in (which is often by the way) talking about an open forum
Although I guess the conservatives who want evolution taught side by side with creationism are all for having an open forum
Uh, mixing "social justice" with environmental policy for starters.
Any potential tax increase on him that will prevent the financing of that new fishing boat he wants. But raised taxes for the purpose of killing goat herders? Money well spent!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
