Again, gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential voting.I fully understand what you are saying and I do not truly have a good argument against it. Nonetheless, gerrymandering has made the electoral college unfair to begin with and that was a change that was made to the constitution. It does not represent the state itself but the make up of the state determined by those that were in charge at some point and changed it.
What are you talking about?Luckyone said:By the same token, it is also evident that our forefathers could not have predicted the scenario that is seen now but if they had been able to foresee it, I doubt they would have allowed the electoral college to be what it is now.
Point is: The EC is NOT unfair; it gives small states a small chance of effecting the result. Remember electors are apportioned based on the number of Representatives and Senators - so large states still have an advantage.Luckyone said:I do not have a suggestion as to how to change it. It should be changed though and likely by an unbiased panel of representatives or by bi-partisan agreement to get rid of the unfairness of it. There is no way that a state with less than 1 million should have the same determining power over a state with 40 million, especially when the needs of each state are so completely opposed.
Uh, no. those two states would have a huge majority of votes in the EC. Congressional districts, and therefore the majority of electors as apportioned by population.Luckyone said:Using a fantasy example, imagine there being 52 states and 90% of the population living in only 2 of those states, meaning that 35 million people would decide what what 350 million must do. That almost sounds like a dictatorship instead of a democracy.
Void Argument. What tools? What are you even talking about?It is very simple and the reason for my last post. Trump has used every single tool available to him without any concern whether it is morally correct or not.
He pays taxes... Maybe not as much as you'd like him to pay, but he does pay them. He also takes advantage of the tax code to his benefit, but that is not immoral to do... Don't like it? Change the tax code...Not paying taxes for years for someone as rich as he is, is morally wrong.
WRONG. The word you are looking for is Capitalism.Paying taxes is what makes us be able to live in a wonderful nation.
Correct. Same with anyone else... What's your point?I can see that as an individual person he might not want to pay for his individual benefit
Okay.but as a President he represents all of us
What actions, precisely?and his actions
He is not obligated in any way to show any of his tax returns. Neither was Obama, neither was Bush, neither was Clinton, etc...and lack of desire to show his taxes
It IS the way to act... It is a good thing to find ways to save money. Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one way to do so...is like him saying to all of us that is the way to act.
WRONG. Paying less in taxes would not destroy our nation in any way...If everyone acts that way, we would not have a nation.
I am not applauding all of his actions; just the ones we have been discussing so far... let's keep context here...Since you are applauding his actions,
I support attempting to save money (and being smart with money). Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one such method of doing so. That represents being responsible, another action which I support.it does suggest that you support such actions and what they represent.
Okay.I gave an example regarding lawyers since the reality is that they follow the law and generally do not allow moral standards to interfere with their job.
In some cases, yes... In other cases, no...Since they often represent reprehensible people and those that want to do wrong but get away with it
He's not doing wrong by taking advantage of the tax code.and you seem to like Trump doing something like that,
Bulverism Fallacy. My supposed motives are irrelevant.it would suggest you like lawyers and hate those that don't or can't take advantage of our laws.
Okay... I wouldn't say "generally", but yeah, there are numerous instances where they aren't. Abortion is one such example of this...There is a legal standard and a moral standard and generally they are not in the same corner.
Me too.I prefer a moral standard.
So you're only going to take cases in which you think the defendant is guilty, like you are getting at below?If I was a lawyer, I would likely be a prosecutor
Sounds like your law business is going to fail miserably, or like you might get fired by your employer for insubordination... Either way, it doesn't sound like you would be a successful lawyer by any measure...or if defending someone, I would only represent someone I consider innocent.
See above. I just choose to not be a lawyer, personally...I would not ever represent someone that was legally correct but morally incorrect.
The former is the job of a lawyer. Their job is to properly represent their clients per laws currently on the books. If they have a moral issue with doing so, then they probably shouldn't be a lawyer, as they probably wouldn't be a successful lawyer that way.You seem to support the former per your defense of Trump.
As does anybody else... Even you... Do you pay more in taxes than what the law requires you to (per your [or your tax preparer's] understanding of it)? Why or why not?He always uses the law for his benefit
I have. He has done so regarding the abortion issue. He has also done so in the immigration issue (aka 'we have the moral right to defend ourselves and our citizens').but I have never seen him apply moral standards to anything,
He did not separate any mothers from any children.like when he separated mothers from their children but did not even keep records of where they were so they could get reunited in the future. That was an example of being legally correct but totally morally wrong.
Paradox. It is not possible for a country to be both, as those forms of government conflict with each other. In a Democracy, people rule the country (rule by mob). In a Republic, a document of law (a constitution) rules the country. These forms of government were created (and thus defined) around 5th century BC by Athens [Democracy] and Rome [Republic].It is both a democracy and a republic.
Wrong. It is any state that is ruled by a Constitution. Ancient Rome has defined what a Republic is.A republic is simply any state, democratic or undemocratic, that doesn't have a monarchy.
That is known as "democratically electing" representatives. Democratically electing representatives can happen in various forms of government and is NOT the same as Democracy [the form of government]. In our Federated Republic, we choose to democratically elect representatives.A democracy is where the citizens of a state select their leadership through free and fair elections (making them part of the political process)
Human rights don't have to be respected in a Democracy. Heck, they don't even have to be respected in a Republic, or even in our Federated Republic (if we were to amend our Constitution).and where human rights are respected.
Great Britain is an Oligarchy. I'm not familiar enough with the other governments listed to say what they are...There are democratic non-republics (like Great Britain, Japan, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries),
Russia is an Oligarchy, and so is China. North Korea is a Dictatorship. I'm not familiar enough with Syria or Iran to say what they are...and non-democratic republics (like Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, and Iran).
You're on the right track, but not quite correct... The USA is a Federated Republic because it consists of several layers of Republics (such as at the State level, for example)...The federalism aspect just refers to the United States having sub-national governmental bodies.
What Democratic process has Trump thrown away? Name and date... lay it out.
The USA is not a Democracy.
Part (1) of (2) ...
Void Argument. What tools? What are you even talking about?
He pays taxes... Maybe not as much as you'd like him to pay, but he does pay them. He also takes advantage of the tax code to his benefit, but that is not immoral to do... Don't like it? Change the tax code...
WRONG. The word you are looking for is Capitalism.
Correct. Same with anyone else... What's your point?
Okay.
What actions, precisely?
He is not obligated in any way to show any of his tax returns. Neither was Obama, neither was Bush, neither was Clinton, etc...
It IS the way to act... It is a good thing to find ways to save money. Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one way to do so...
WRONG. Paying less in taxes would not destroy our nation in any way...
I am not applauding all of his actions; just the ones we have been discussing so far... let's keep context here...
I support attempting to save money (and being smart with money). Taking advantage of how the tax code is written is one such method of doing so. That represents being responsible, another action which I support.
Okay.
In some cases, yes... In other cases, no...
He's not doing wrong by taking advantage of the tax code.
Bulverism Fallacy. My supposed motives are irrelevant.
I like the practices of some lawyers; I dislike the practices of other lawyers. I hold no hate towards those who don't or can't take advantage of our laws.
Okay... I wouldn't say "generally", but yeah, there are numerous instances where they aren't. Abortion is one such example of this...
Me too.
And Schumer called for NO HEARINGS FOR ANY GW BUSH nominees, in Jan., 2007.
And? "Elections have consequences".
The OP claims are just more DOUBLE STANDARD/HYPOCRISY from the DUPLICITOUS LEFT...
It's nothing to do with democratic process. It's more to do with the executve and legislative branches trying to work around the constraints put on them by the Constitution. The last three Presidents have all been guilty of this. Trump is just clumsier and more obvious in how he goes about it.
He is not a criminal. He has not been convicted of any crimes.
Some lawyers are fine, some lawyers are real slimeballs... Not sure how this pertains to our discussion...
Their job is to defend their clients.
Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.
Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.
Bulverism Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.
Insult Fallacy.
Are we going to talk about anything of substance, or are you going to continue attacking my character and supposed motives?
Paradox. It is not possible for a country to be both, as those forms of government conflict with each other. In a Democracy, people rule the country (rule by mob). In a Republic, a document of law (a constitution) rules the country. These forms of government were created (and thus defined) around 5th century BC by Athens [Democracy] and Rome [Republic].
Wrong. It is any state that is ruled by a Constitution. Ancient Rome has defined what a Republic is.
That is known as "democratically electing" representatives. Democratically electing representatives can happen in various forms of government and is NOT the same as Democracy [the form of government]. In our Federated Republic, we choose to democratically elect representatives.
Democracy (the form of government) is where people rule, NOT a constitution. It is mob rule. Ancient Athens has defined what a Democracy is. There are no Democracies in the word today, as they all quickly collapse (typically into an Oligarchy).
Human rights don't have to be respected in a Democracy. Heck, they don't even have to be respected in a Republic, or even in our Federated Republic (if we were to amend our Constitution).
Great Britain is an Oligarchy. I'm not familiar enough with the other governments listed to say what they are...
Russia is an Oligarchy, and so is China. North Korea is a Dictatorship. I'm not familiar enough with Syria or Iran to say what they are...
Part (2) of (2) ...
So you're only going to take cases in which you think the defendant is guilty, like you are getting at below?
Sounds like your law business is going to fail miserably, or like you might get fired by your employer for insubordination... Either way, it doesn't sound like you would be a successful lawyer by any measure...
. The key phrase is "represent their clients", which means they decided to take the case because there was a fee given. I have yet to see any lawyer represent a guilty client without a fee being involved. And yet, I have seen many lawyers represent innocent clients and charge no fee. Simply stated, this is selling your soul for money.See above. I just choose to not be a lawyer, personally...
The former is the job of a lawyer. Their job is to properly represent their clients per laws currently on the books. If they have a moral issue with doing so, then they probably shouldn't be a lawyer, as they probably wouldn't be a successful lawyer that way.
As does anybody else... Even you... Do you pay more in taxes than what the law requires you to (per your [or your tax preparer's] understanding of it)? Why or why not?
I have. He has done so regarding the abortion issue. He has also done so in the immigration issue (aka 'we have the moral right to defend ourselves and our citizens').
He did not separate any mothers from any children.
Again, gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential voting.
You have fallacy-itis, get thee to a doctor !
Those definitions still apply today as much as they did back then...That may be true by archaic, ancient definitions, but, by the modern understandings of the terms, it's extremely easy for a country to be both a republic and a democracy.
That definition still applies today as much as it did back then...Once again, I think you're using an archaic definition. Have you heard of the term "constitutional monarchy?" These are non-republics with constitutions. Canada and Great Britain, for example, both have constitutions, but they're not republics.
That definition still applies today as much as it did back then...So, there are no democracies in the world today? Once again, you're using an archaic, ancient definition. There may be no "direct democracies" left, but "representative democracies" are everywhere.
False Authority Fallacy. Wikipedia does not own any word, nor does it define any word. Also, I typically dismiss Wikipedia on sight whenever it is used as a source, as I do not find it to be a valid source of anything. It is typically incorrect and/or incomplete, and it can be edited by virtually anyone. In short, Wikipedia means nothing to me.I would recommend skimming Wikipedia's definition of democracy.
An Oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. That's how those countries that you listed operate... Canada is another example of an Oligarchy.In what way is Great Britain an oligarchy? Later, you say China and Russia are oligarchies are well. How are their governments similar?
No they can't. A dictatorship only has one person who is the dictator, such as is the case in North Korea... An oligarchy has a group of people who rule over the rest of the people ("dictatorship by committee").A country can be both an oligarchy and a dictatorship. There's no sharp line between systems of government.
Gee golly Wally, I was just watching Lindsey Graham from yesterday and he says "we are a democracy".
LOL, nicely twisted. I realize "gerrymandering" is still on libs laundry list of reasons Auntie Hilary, which makes it easier than facing the reality of the situation. Given the number of Dems that unseated incumbent GOPers in the last election I gotta give the ol' gerrymandering complaint a big nothingburger.That's misleading to say that. Gerrymanderingi does have an indirect effect on presidential elections, in that it is showable that the higher number of competitive races a voter has on their ballot, the more likely they are to turn out to vote. Gerrymandering has the effect of reducing the number of competitive races (that is, in fact, the whole point of gerrymandering), thereby suppressing turnout which tends to benefit republicans, which is one of the reasons they do it.
An Oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. That's how those countries that you listed operate... Canada is another example of an Oligarchy.
Do you have a source for Canada and Great Britain being oligarchies (or "dictatorshipby committee")?
The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.Are there any countries in the world today that you would consider to be "republics" other than the United States when Republicans are in power?
History.Do you have a source for the typology of governments that you are using?
So?Some types of governments, like "oligarchy," aren't really formal terms.
The very definition of Oligarchy.
The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.
History.
So?
UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a democratic republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives.
The very definition of Oligarchy.
The USA is a Republic even when Democrats are in power... Any country which is governed by a Constitution (rather than any person or group of people) is a Republic.
LOL, nicely twisted. I realize "gerrymandering" is still on libs laundry list of reasons Auntie Hilary, which makes it easier than facing the reality of the situation. Given the number of Dems that unseated incumbent GOPers in the last election I gotta give the ol' gerrymandering complaint a big nothingburger.
Fallacies do not make for rational reasoning... I will typically call out irrational reasoning wherever I see it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?