Well now . . . this certainly shows that we do not need states, nor the electoral college. Just get things done by polls and surveys. Brilliant.

What I posted had zero to do with Floridaman
But with you it’s all about defending him and claiming you don’t really like him.
Sort of like a beaten wife saying it’s not his fault.
You just keep believing, your children will pay for your obedience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Liberal fool with liberal views🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is not particularly funny how we have dramatically changed the relationship of the states to the national government. You say vague things like " we have changed dramatically in our history," but WE have not changed. We are the same human species that have the same essential desires and needs. We humans have instituted various kinds of governments, not, for the most part in the history of nation states, because of essential needs of WE the people. WE were usually the afterthought, the grist, the labor for the benefit of various ruling governments, ruling classes. Our founding was a unique flipping of that order--the creation of government being for the benefit of WE.

And the essential feature of our constitutional republic was not the power of the national, central, government, but the power of local and state government and the necessity of WE ultimately governing ourselves.

Nothing has changed in our nature, in who we are since then. Size of nation, of the world, technological advancement, whatever, nothing has changed the nature of what we are. The dichotomy still exists. Is the government close to home that we can more personally affect and control the one that suites us, or is it the distant one size fits all government that we can barely touch yet in actuality has near total control of our lives the one we desire. That is a simple question with volumes of debate to consider.

Thank you for at least responding to the question that went so long unanswered. But you didn't actually answer it. The undeniable fact is the national government has grown immensely in power over the states. And that is not an accident. Progressive government thrives on central power, on government's ability to do what its experts consider the good and the right without impediments like being restricted to a few enumerated powers. The constitutional order of divided government closer to the hands of the people is in the process of being flipped back to the previous old order of the nation state governed totally by centralized control which is more and more serving, as that old order required, the needs of the powerful few.

In light of all that, I'll ask again, are states necessary?

I think that if it is the Progressive notion of government that you prefer, then you would not actually see the need for impediments to unhampered power of government by things like different states and cities with their competing laws and statutes and populations who vote for their local self-interest against the national rules which would more efficiently bind us to the rule of those who supposedly know best. And so, also, how you would prefer that every election would be by popular vote--how you would prefer a Progressive pure democracy to a constitutional republic. In spite of the lessons of history which tell us what such democracies ultimately become.

it's because the democraps are sooooo much worse...not that complicated really...you are as crazed and obsessed as they are....you only needed to watch those three loons they rolled out as "experts" the other morning...the left has completely lost it and can't be trusted with ANYTHING

i think climate change is happening. i’m in favor of more background checks for guns. I agree with you. fair enough?

You’re the one, not me, who can’t ever disagree with his side. Never, as far as I can tell.

I don’t doubt a majority of
people in CA and NY want the electoral college abandoned. Which is precisely why we need it. And it’s exactly why the founding fathers said that to amend the constitution, you need a minimum number of states to agree to it, not a minimum number of overall voters.

You want a pure democracy. The founding fathers sought specifically to avoid that, which is why we are a Republic instead. They wanted to avoid sectionalism, they wanted to
avoid the tyranny of the majority.

States are sovereign entities. In your vision, they’d be nothing but miniaturized versions of the federal government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not defend trump, i said it’s funny that youd tease someone else for the act of repeatedly posting articles that serve their agenda, when no one does that nearly as much as you.

On this forum i have defended trump and criticized him. Because i’m rational and fair.

My children will be fine. Don’t worry yourself. One of the reasons they will be fine, is because of the ridiculous market gains i’ve realized in the last three years. if i was a paranoid thoughtless Trump hater like you, id have converted everything i had to cash the day after the election, and me and my kids would have missed out on the gravy train.

I see things as they are, not only as I wish they were. Trump is a repulsive individual who in my opinion based on a rational review of everything he has done, happens to be making life better for most of us. Id say the same thing about Bill Clinton. Trumps overt cockiness and bluster are just words. The Supreme Court has struck him down when he had overreached as they do with every administration. We’re no closer to a dictatorship then we were in 2016. All the checks and balances are still in place. Thank God. Your side never stops shrieking that hes a threat to our democratic institutions, there’s exactly zero evidence of that. Zip.

The left never saw his victory coming ( neither did I), and they just can’t accept it. That’s all this is, a temper tantrum from a bunch of spoiled brats who have zero ability to cope with disappointment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was really pathetic on wednesday. one of the scholarly experts once admitted that she went out of her way to cross the street rather than walk in front of a Trump hotel. That’s not krazy, nope. So i’m supposed to believe her opinion on impeachment is a neutral review of the facts?

Keep bleating like he sheep you are lefties, orange man baaaaaaaad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are clueless and regurgitating talking points ingnoring what was said and attcking witness its all you guys can do .. because⁰ Trump hasnt given anyting to use as a defense. Except to say he didnt do it ( hes a serial lier)

The 4 are not jurors. their Task was based on the testimony can he be impeached

3 yes 1 who criticize the process, just like the Republicans

Jim look around you your surrounded by sheep. Just Republicans ones

When the emperors clothes come off . Where will all those who blindly followed Trump go.

Cuz this isn't going to stop. ( Trumps) behavior is going to go into overdrive once the Senate publicly show their fealty to Trump. any independence they had is gone
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not clueless. What i said is true. One of the legal experts the democrats asked to testify if he should be impeached, is so deranged with trump hatred that she admitted she crossed the street rather than walk on the sidewalk in front of a building that has his name on it. That is beyond crazy, and she is the one they asked to testify? She also had that pathetic, rehearsed applause line about Trumps son, hardy har har.

Trumps defense, as you said is that he didn’t do it, nor did anyone provide any direct evidence that he did it. I think he probably did it, but in any event, Biden also used quid pro quo, and senate democrats also asked a foreign power to investigate a political rival, and no one is/was asking for them to be impeached. So it's fairly clear there’s a double standard.

“their task was based on testimony can he be impeached.”. Agreed. But who gives a damn about how someone answers that question, who hates Trump so much that she won’t walk on the sidewalk in front of a building with his name on it? She’s not impartial, not even close.

You’re right it’s not going to stop. Trump isn’t going to behave, and thanks in part to your sides inability to nominate anyone to the right of Pol Pot, he’s very possibly going to get re elected. So a good chance of 4 more years of listening to liberal bratty temper tantrums.

Obama liked to say, elections have consequences. Suck it up like i did from 2009-2016.

There are plenty of sheep
on the right. I’m not one of them. Not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gosh, another thread disintegrating into talking about Trump. Who'd of thought that would happen?

The thread is about the electoral college. States are the reason for the electoral college.

wdmso--is it necessary for America to have 50 separate units of government with different constitutions, various different laws, different educational concepts, different tax structures, different economic conditions and needs, differences that often are obstacles that the national government has to overcome, and the only reason for the cumbersome problem that you want to eliminate--the electoral college?

Wouldn't it be more efficient and cheaper if we were the United State of America rather than the United States of America? There certainly would be no need of something like the electoral college. And we could easily, basically unopposed, have the purely democratic popular vote that you want.

Yeah, it looks like Scott and Jim started talking about Trump and the Dotard starting talking specifically about the last election.

Do you think hanging on to the old perhaps outdated notion of 50 different sovereign states is a good idea, a necessary one for us to move on towards the Progressive notion of government that suits our new and future times? Or would it be better to just consolidate the whole mess into one efficient and less expensive model of a unitary state?

never said abolish said tweak but all you hear is abolish shocking

Jim it appears in your mind only you and republicans can walk and chew gum at the same time

it's lame that you and republicans think that..
if you ever gave money to a democrat or voted for 1 you are unable to pass legal judgment on a republican .. this crying of Bias only works in your victimized world you and republicans have created to a point where it ends and reality starts , is so blurry you can't tell ...


you'll insist this not True the republicans will insist this is not true , but yours and theirs written words and spoken words .. tell a different storie altogether .. even when faced with this record in the future


Trump his supporters now portray experts as untrustworthy and contemptuous elites out to subvert the will of ordinary Americans.

And the base it dumb enough to believe it ..

:conf:

"it's lame that you and republicans think that..
if you ever gave money to a democrat or voted for 1 you are unable to pass legal judgment on a republican '

Who said that? I have voted for democrats...

"Trump his supporters now portray experts as untrustworthy "

Why not get someone who doesn't obviously hate Trump? She's obviously deranged with hate. Plenty of legal scholars out there. Why did they select her, do you think?

the democrat "experts" clearly are

best they could do...and some are still in their safe spaces

Maybe Trump sent the rest of them to death camps already.

I did hear a Trumplican call in to a radio show today and say something to the effect "He should just declare martial law, arrest all the Democrats in government and lock them all up, because they want to make us be Communist/Socialists"
I wouldn't suggest death camps to that guy, he sounded like he was ready to start on his own campaign.

I apologize if I mistakenly thought that you wanted to get rid of the electoral college. But I did hear, contrary to your opinion, more than that. I did hear you're questioning the unfairness of the e.c. and the anti-democratic nature of it. I admit that I didn't hear you say that it should be tweaked. I checked back in the thread but couldn't find that. And most discussions about the controversy are portrayed as the e.c. versus the popular vote.

In any event, my question to you was not if the electoral college should exist, or even if it should be "tweaked." My question is "is it necessary for America to have 50 separate units of government with different constitutions, various different laws, different educational concepts, different tax structures, different economic conditions and needs, differences that often are obstacles that the national government has to overcome, or would it be better, more democratic, more efficient and cheaper if we were the United State of America rather than the United States of America? There certainly would be no need of something like the electoral college. And we could easily, basically unopposed, have the purely democratic popular vote.

That was me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device