Mob rule = Progressive rule

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

 

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

If the Electoral College is done away with, New York and California will decide all our Presidential elections.

Is this what everyone wants?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mob rule is sheep that can easily be driven to slaughter.. Socialism sounds good but each time tried millions die. This is why our school system was taken over and why true socialism and its failures are never taught.

 

[BluesLegend]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

If the Electoral College is done away with, New York and California will decide all our Presidential elections.

Is this what everyone wants?

No, illegals and their anchor babies will decide our elections.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

If the Electoral College is done away with, New York and California will decide all our Presidential elections.

Is this what everyone wants?

No, illegals and their anchor babies will decide our elections.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. They are citizens of their parents countries at birth.

 

[BluesLegend]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

If the Electoral College is done away with, New York and California will decide all our Presidential elections.

Is this what everyone wants?

No, illegals and their anchor babies will decide our elections.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. They are citizens of their parents countries at birth.

Do you know what an illegal is? LOL Come here

 

[forkup]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

 

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

If the Electoral College is done away with, New York and California will decide all our Presidential elections.

Is this what everyone wants?

No, illegals and their anchor babies will decide our elections.

Yes, that is another source of mob rule.

Just get illegals to vote or legal aliens who are uneducated and been told Dims want to give them things, like a free college education based upon their DNA.

 

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.

So you are suggesting that a direct vote for a Representative does not mean it is direct democracy? There Is some truth to that, but I was discussing why the Founding Fathers saw a need to only let the House be elected directly by the people as a Representative and not the Senate. You either ignored all that or can't wrap your mind around what I was saying.

Obviously, people like yourself discount the wisdom around why it was set up that way, so I'll give you a hint. What is better, an educated voter or an uneducated voter? In ancient Greece, they had a direct democracy, but those who could vote had slaves so they could sit around studying the politics of the day and debating them as where today we let the slaves vote who work 24/7 to survive.

This is why state legislatures were given such power to control the Senate and the Electoral College.

 

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?

You dolt, the Progressives gave the Federal government power over taxation like never before. Before the Progressives amended the Constitution to allow the Federal Income tax to be the law of the land at the turn of the 20th century, SCOTUS struck it down as unconstitutional. States should run their own tax affairs as it was originally set up. I take no issue with you being upset over the President targeting his political opponents through such measures, much like I don't support Obama using the IRS to target his political opponents either, but you must understand that Progressives have created a dictatorial power of sorts as state rights have been subverted to the Executive Branch over the years by Progressives. YOU created this Frankenstein.

 

[Rocko]

Mob rule was in favor of the liberals, if the shoe was on the other foot, they’d be screaming about the merits of the electoral college. Bunch of phonies

 

[Votto]

- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.

Sorry, I don't remember saying that they were not infallible. You have to remember, these same folks that fought a bloody Revolution to be free from a dictatorial state then turned right around and created and Alien and Sedition Acts. These same people that fought for freedom of speech turned right around and made it illegal to speak out against the government. Had Thomas Jefferson not risen up and fought this abomination and obvious contradiction to the Bill of Rights, the US would be a much darker place than it is today. Even so, Jefferson used the powers of the Sedition Acts to his own advantage even though he ended up doing away with most of it. In addition, what was left FDR used to lock up innocent Japanese Americans

So no, I in no way advocate defying the Founding Fathers, but what I do object to is negating their education and their obvious insight as to the corrupt and faulty nature of mankind and their wisdom in using checks and balances to combat these things.

Thanks for playing.

 

[AZGAL]

“For the record, I did not vote for him nor have I owned, worn or even touched a MAGA hat,” - quote from the violent hateful disrespectful selfish bigot terrorist that murdered innocent people at the synagogue.

 

[Votto]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

Again, taxation should be up to the states. If states want "free everything" then pay for it yourselves.

How is it right that California wants free everything and then makes folks in Mississippi pay for it?

That is the way it was originally designed dolt.

 

[Votto]

“For the record, I did not vote for him nor have I owned, worn or even touched a MAGA hat,” - quote from the violent hateful disrespectful selfish bigot terrorist that murdered innocent people at the synagogue.

Why is this in my thread?

 

[forkup]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.

So you are suggesting that a direct vote for a Representative does not mean it is direct democracy? There Is some truth to that, but I was discussing why the Founding Fathers saw a need to only let the House be elected directly by the people as a Representative and not the Senate. You either ignored all that or can't wrap your mind around what I was saying.

Obviously, people like yourself discount the wisdom around why it was set up that way, so I'll give you a hint. What is better, an educated voter or an uneducated voter? In ancient Greece, they had a direct democracy, but those who could vote had slaves so they could sit around studying the politics of the day and debating them as where today we let the slaves vote who work 24/7 to survive.

This is why state legislatures were given such power to control the Senate and the Electoral College.

Not for nothing. How can you acknowledge that you agree that electing a representative is NOT direct Democracy but then go right back to your original argument? A representative has only one job. That job is to " sit around and study politics all day" In that sense they act as an "educated voter". You aren't wrong though when you said that the Founding Fathers didn't want a representative government. They wanted as many checks and balances as they could muster. One of them being that the elite in any state still had a way to keep some power. Over the centuries though as levels of educated people have risen both the idea and the reasoning for it have become superfluous.

 

[forkup]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?

You dolt, the Progressives gave the Federal government power over taxation like never before. Before the Progressives amended the Constitution to allow the Federal Income tax to be the law of the land at the turn of the 20th century, SCOTUS struck it down as unconstitutional. States should run their own tax affairs as it was originally set up. I take no issue with you being upset over the President targeting his political opponents through such measures, much like I don't support Obama using the IRS to target his political opponents either, but you must understand that Progressives have created a dictatorial power of sorts as state rights have been subverted to the Executive Branch over the years by Progressives. YOU created this Frankenstein.

If your argument for the electoral college is that it protects smaller states and I give an example of it hurting bigger states with more people then your argument fall flat doesn't it? It then becomes a simple matter of a voting system hurting a few people or a lot of people with you coming down on the side of hurting a lot of people.

 

[Flash]

Liberalism is the majority using the government to steal from the minority and yea, that is mob rule.

 

[AZGAL]

When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

Enough mob rule. The mob exremists "vote" with violence. "Screw your optics, I'm going in,” wrote Robert Bowers, 46, on the social media site Gab and then he went in all commando after talking to his mob friends and he killed innocent people at a place of worship. He is seeking more glory and attention from the public as well.

 

[forkup]

It is well known that the Founding Fathers were worried about a pure democracy. They rejected this as mob rule and instead founded a Representative government. After all, minorities and small states merely get trampled under such a system.

As the Founding Father of the Constitution, James Madison, said, the Constitution is a mixture of democracy and state Representation. This is why Congress has two Houses. The House was to represent the democratic vote and the House was to represent the state representatives. But what of the Presidential election? Again, to avoid a direct mob rule election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to offset it.

However, over the years Progressives have risen up to move towards direct mob rule. One such attempt was to do away with Senators who were appointed by state representatives. A Constitutional amendment did away with the practice by letting the Senators be chosen by direct election, just like in the House. However, the question begs, why then have a Senate? It is clear that the Founding Fathers were more wary of the House than the Senate, simply because they gave the Senate much more power. There are ONLY 2 Senators per state, thus their votes have far more power than in the House. Also, those in the Senate serve 6 years, not 2 like in the House. And lastly, the Senate was given more responsibility and power by being chosen to do such things as approve Supreme Court justices, yet Progressives snub their noses as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers had regarding this issue and opted for mob rule by having them directly elected by the people.

Now the Electoral college is in the cross hairs. Not only that, it has been tampered with by Progressives as well. For you see, those chosen in the Electoral College used to be appointed by the state, and not elected directly by the people. Now these folks are elected directly by the people, yet Progressives are still not happy, especially after this last election. There are only two incidents that the Electoral College has defied the popular vote in the modern era, and this last one putting Trump in power was one of them. Now the Electoral College must go as well it seems.

So when will conservatives rise up and shout NO!? When will others rise up against mob rule? Enough!

-Representative government doesn't mean what you claim it did. It's simply the fact that we don't make policy ourselves but rather that we elect people to do so in our place.
-Secondly claiming it's a way to protect smaller states and minorities is iffy at best and it's just as easily twisted around. For instance Trump's tax law has disproportionately targeted the people of Blue States that have been hit with higher property taxes and the like. It creates a situation that laws will get passed that only benefit a handful of people, relatively speaking simply because they are over-represented in the senate. Is that fair?
- Thirdly. Invoking the Founding Father like their ideas have somehow come down from Mount Sinai is also wrong. The Founding Fathers created a constitution that was far ahead of it's time and counts as a prototype of a workable system for citizen rule. However that doesn't mean it's infallible nor that the people who created it were. Over the centuries the document has been altered several times. This to accommodate both practical faults and changes in morality since it's conception. I don't see why all of a sudden people should forget logic simply because the Founding Fathers wrote something down.
- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

- You wan't to talk fair. I don't think it's fair that the vote of someone voting in Wyoming is more than three times more valuable then a New Yorker. The battle cry of the Revolution was " No taxation without representation". Yet someone who lives in New York. Someone who pays way more in taxes on average then somebody living in Wyoming has more then 3 times less power at the ballot box. Fair???? I think not.

Again, taxation should be up to the states. If states want "free everything" then pay for it yourselves.

How is it right that California wants free everything and then makes folks in Mississippi pay for it?

That is the way it was originally designed dolt.

This is now twice you called me dolt. I don't appreciate it since I'm not calling you any names and I'm the only person who takes out the time and effort to answer the premise of your post. If you don't agree with my arguments fine but don't call me stupid unless you are capable of proving it. This post as those before isn't it. You are now deflecting from the unfairness of NOT giving equal representation to people living in California. By trying to establish that People living there want more free stuff. Not only is it a bad attempt at deflection, it is also wrong. "Free" stuff is stuff you don't pay for. Taxation is a form payment for services rendered by the government.