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!

-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.

I will concede that I should have specified my discussion of democracy to that of electing representatives directly. The whole premise is that the Founders feared only representatives elected by the people. That is the point of this thread.

As for voters being more intelligent today? Really? As Winston Churchill once said, the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a voter.



Oh, and Howard Stern also interview McCain voters. They were equally as stupid.

And no, Howard is no partisan.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

 

[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.

I will concede that I should have specified my discussion of democracy to that of electing representatives directly. The whole premise is that the Founders feared only representatives elected by the people. That is the point of this thread.

As for voters being more intelligent today? Really? As Winston Churchill once said, the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a voter.



Oh, and Howard Stern also interview McCain voters. They were equally as stupid.

And no, Howard is no partisan.

Sure but back in the day representatives were a lot of what one would refer to as "common folk". Now nearly all of them are educated people. Lawyers, teachers, judges and the like. In fact most people occupying the senate started out in the house. By the way I still don't see why something should be solely judged on the merit that the Founding Fathers intended something a certain way. As you have already acknowledged that they made mistakes.

 

[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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

Thanks, apology accepted. Back to the post now.
Again NOT really wanting to answer the premise of what I said? Why is it fair that a vote cast in Wyoming is three times more powerful then one cast in California?
As for the progressives not paying for anything. They pay taxes. generally speaking they are not for lowering them. Paying taxes is paying. I also want to point out that Trump and the GOP just lowered taxes, on purely BORROWED money. Does that look like fiscal responsibility? The Democrats at least expect a return on their increases in the deficit in the form of better healthcare or a minimum wage, etc. Republicans run up the deficit in the hope that the beneficiaries of tax cuts will share their wealth.

 

[dudmuck]

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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

Federal deficit was erased in last Clinton years. <-- democrats pay for their stuff.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

Federal deficit was erased in last Clinton years. <-- democrats pay for their stuff.

This post illustrates what I'm talking about in terms of uninformed voters.

To say that Bill Clinton balanced the budget is to ignore that he had a GOP Congress insisting he do so.

To also ignore the fact that this was the last time, and perhaps the last time, that this is will ever be accomplished should be mentioned.

Both parties got us here and the Progressive movement was helped started by the GOP with Teddy Roosevelt. Both parties have engaged in embracing massive entitlements as both parties have also embraced tax cuts.

Case in point is "W" starting the Drugs for Seniors entitlement that Obama joked about not knowing how to pay for, and Obama embracing the "W" tax cuts in order to help jump start the economy.

The sickness is this, Americans want free stuff but don't want to pay for it. Currently, we have an opposing party that says they want to raise taxes a little, but also want free college and health care, which would dwarf the revenue brought in by raising taxes.

In addition, raising taxes burdens the economy, thus reducing the GDP numbers.

The Founder of Starbucks is a raging Progressive and thought about running for President, but even he agrees that the US cannot embrace more entitlements at this time. He says socialism would bankrupt the US because of the massive debt, so what is needed is to grow the economy and increase revenue.

Imagine that, a socialist who says it can't work in the US right now because of the massive debt.

Naturally, this makes him more of a right wing radical than even Trump.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

Thanks, apology accepted. Back to the post now.
Again NOT really wanting to answer the premise of what I said? Why is it fair that a vote cast in Wyoming is three times more powerful then one cast in California?
As for the progressives not paying for anything. They pay taxes. generally speaking they are not for lowering them. Paying taxes is paying. I also want to point out that Trump and the GOP just lowered taxes, on purely BORROWED money. Does that look like fiscal responsibility? The Democrats at least expect a return on their increases in the deficit in the form of better healthcare or a minimum wage, etc. Republicans run up the deficit in the hope that the beneficiaries of tax cuts will share their wealth.

The Federal government should not have been given the power of the purse by creating the Income tax. As I already said, it had been declared unconstitutional before being amended to the Constitution. Also, once this happened the Federal government also created their own bank. That way what they could not raise as revenue they could just print money out of thin air. What we now have is, is a government body that throws money at every man, woman, and child on the planet. They have no restraint, especially after Nixon got us off the gold standard. So what does this buy the US? It buys them influence all around the world, and at home. That way if you don't do as I like, I may cut you off. And at home, we see the same thing going on. They created Social Security that the government steals from, but at the same time they give money to those that need it as well. So who then is going to stop them from stealing? Most voters as clueless about such things, or they just don't care so long as they get their cut. In the interim the system slowly grows insolvent.

So getting back to state vs. state. Why is it that federal funds can be generated to help fund a project in Montana as those in all other 49 states help fund it? The other 49 states are unable to vote for or against the Congressman who will use the money for his own state. This is taxation without representation.

Perhaps this is why Congressional approval continues to hover below 20% while they still seem to get reelected anyway. Most voters like the cash their representative brings into the state. but disapprove as a whole the legislative body that steals from their own state, congressmen they can neither vote for or against.

Yes, an approval rating below 20% for decades, and this is the best a supposed representative body can muster?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

It didn't target anyone, people in the blue States were not paying their fair share of taxes to the federal government instead it was going to 65 grand a year local dog catchers ...



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Agreed, I will refrain from calling you a dolt. I reckon that is how you begin to talk after being immersed with trolls on this board. You don't seem to be one, my apologies.

As for not paying for stuff, since when have progressives paid for anything? They routinely run deficits. This is how the US obtain a debt of over $20 trillion and why states around the country have a large amount of debt.

I submit that their only success resides in not paying for things, because if people really had to pay as they go, they would quickly turn against the Nanny State.

Thanks, apology accepted. Back to the post now.
Again NOT really wanting to answer the premise of what I said? Why is it fair that a vote cast in Wyoming is three times more powerful then one cast in California?
As for the progressives not paying for anything. They pay taxes. generally speaking they are not for lowering them. Paying taxes is paying. I also want to point out that Trump and the GOP just lowered taxes, on purely BORROWED money. Does that look like fiscal responsibility? The Democrats at least expect a return on their increases in the deficit in the form of better healthcare or a minimum wage, etc. Republicans run up the deficit in the hope that the beneficiaries of tax cuts will share their wealth.

Once again it is not 3 times, good god damn the senate is for states rights the house is for people's rights.


California has 1 rep per roughly 700,000 people, Wyoming has one rep for roughly 600,000 people