What happened to the Democratic Party?

[hadit]

Which is why I pointed out the EC gave the small states an unfair advantage over the larger states.

If it's in the constitution, it can't be illegal.

It deliberately gave smaller states more power because without such measures, the big states would always pick the president, and the smaller ones would simply be ignored. This way, Hillary ignoring vital states in the final weeks cost her the election (oh, happy day).

 

[theHawk]

Another fact

View attachment 1001699

Most mass shooters now are trannies, radicalized by leftwing media.

 

[postman]

I object to the word ‘intent’, as if there were only one. IMO, the Constitution was constructed with deliberate vagueness, in part, to allow for flexibility over the decades. I doubt they thought their ideas were some sort of wisdom for the ages, but rather a framework on to which democracy could be constructed.

#IMPEACHALITO&THOMAS

One problem with using "intent" is that there is flexibility in choosing whose intent to interpret the constitution by.
The federalist papers is but one source of intent, and often contradicted within the series.

 

[theHawk]

First, Moderna also makes it. So it's not in defense of the manufactuter.

And no different than their defense of mifepristone.
No matter which big pharma makes it.

It's defending the drug, not the maker.

Thank you for proving my point. You defend every clot shot made by Big Parma.

 

[postman]

Then decided to drop out

So what do you propose Dems should have done instead?
Let Trump run unopposed?

Remember when Nikki Haley dropped out. And her delegates voted for somebody else.

Good for the goose?

 

[Papageorgio]

Republicans haven’t won the popular vote for President in 20 years

The Democratic Party is alive and well

The party is alive, the liberals have been excluded, the less fortunate exploited, big corporations supplying tons of cash to buy influence, pro war, anti-free speech, anti-2nd Amendment, pro lawlessness, if this is where America is going, it’s a bad deal for all. At least liberals were honest and fair, these left wing nuts are not about honesty and fairness, it is all about power, the left does not differ from their right wing counterparts. Wish we had liberalism and conservatism back.

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you for proving my point. You defend every clot shot made by Big Parma.

The ones Trump invented?

 

[rightwinger]

The party is alive, the liberals have been excluded, the less fortunate exploited, big corporations supplying tons of cash to buy influence, pro war, anti-free speech, anti-2nd Amendment, pro lawlessness, if this is where America is going, it’s a bad deal for all. At least liberals were honest and fair, these left wing nuts are not about honesty and fairness, it is all about power, the left does not differ from their right wing counterparts. Wish we had liberalism and conservatism back.

Liberals are not excluded in the Democratic Party, they are moderated

Meanwhile, Republicans have surrendered to the arch Conservatives of their party

 

[postman]

it had to get through Congress first, then the states, and yes there were enough Republicans, thankfully

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That says nothing about republicans passing the 13th amendment or ratifying it in 27 states

But it does point out

From its inception in 1776, the United States was divided into states that allowed slavery and states that prohibited it. Slavery was implicitly recognized in the original Constitution in provisions such as the Three-fifths Compromise (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), which provided that three-fifths of each state's enslaved population ("other persons") was to be added to its free population for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives, its number of Electoral votes, and direct taxes among the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) provided that slaves held under the laws of one state who escaped to another state did not become free, but remained slaves.

 

[postman]

hhaha what are you talking about? what a weird post.

I'm sorry if you're ignorant of the McConnell rule for supreme court justices during an election cycle.

 

[Luckyone]

Most mass shooters now are trannies, radicalized by leftwing media.

Sure, if YOU say so. It MUST be true!

 

[Papageorgio]

Liberals are not excluded in the Democratic Party, they are moderated

Meanwhile, Republicans have surrendered to the arch Conservatives of their party

Gabbard, Maher, Morgan have all called out the BS and you try to dance around it, Democrats are either really stupid or out right lying. No better than Maga, just power hungry.

 

[postman]

LOL wow you are delusional.

All the Big name Democrats voted for the Iraq War. Hillary, Kerry, Biden.

Find a better dead horse. Those democrats, especially Hillary Clinton said they voted for it, not as a vote for war but to give the president a "big stick".

They didn't imagine that Bush would create bogus intelligence, and present it to the world, to justify the use of the power to go after terrorists, to go after the guy who "tried to kill my dad."

 

[struth]

That says nothing about republicans passing the 13th amendment or ratifying it in 27 states

But it does point out

From its inception in 1776, the United States was divided into states that allowed slavery and states that prohibited it. Slavery was implicitly recognized in the original Constitution in provisions such as the Three-fifths Compromise (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), which provided that three-fifths of each state's enslaved population ("other persons") was to be added to its free population for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives, its number of Electoral votes, and direct taxes among the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) provided that slaves held under the laws of one state who escaped to another state did not become free, but remained slaves.

hahaha what the F are you talking about? It discusses how the 13th amendment came to be.

The Senate passed the amendment on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6; two Democrats, Oregon Senators Benjamin F Harding and James Nesmith voted for the amendment.[27] However, just over two months later on June 15, the House failed to do so, with 93 in favor and 65 against, thirteen votes short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage; the vote split largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.[28] In the 1864 presidential race, former Free Soil Party candidate John C. Frémont threatened a third-party run opposing Lincoln, this time on a platform endorsing an anti-slavery amendment. The Republican Party platform had, as yet, failed to include a similar plank, though Lincoln endorsed the amendment in a letter accepting his nomination.[29][30] Frémont withdrew from the race on September 22, 1864, and endorsed Lincoln.[3

......

Republicans in Congress claimed a mandate for abolition, having gained in the elections for Senate and House.[55] The 1864 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Representative George H. Pendleton, led opposition to the measure.[56] Republicans toned down their language of radical equality in order to broaden the amendment's coalition of supporters.[57] In order to reassure critics worried that the amendment would tear apart the social fabric, some Republicans explicitly promised the amendment would leave broader American society's patriarchal traditions intact.[58]

In mid-January 1865, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax estimated the amendment to be five votes short of passage. Ashley postponed the vote.[59] At this point, Lincoln intensified his push for the amendment, making direct emotional appeals to particular members of Congress.[60] On January 31, 1865, the House called another vote on the amendment, with neither side being certain of the outcome. With a total of 183 House members (one seat was vacant after Reuben Fenton was elected governor), 122 would have to vote "aye" to secure passage of the resolution; however, eight Democrats abstained, reducing the number to 117. Every Republican (84), Independent Republican (2), and Unconditional Unionist (16) supported the measure, as well as fourteen Democrats, almost all of them lame ducks, and three Unionists. The amendment finally passed by a vote of 119 to 56,[61] narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority.[62] The House exploded into celebration, with some members openly weeping.[63] Black onlookers, who had only been allowed to attend Congressional sessions since the previous year, cheered from the galleries.[64]

While the Constitution does not provide the President any formal role in the amendment process, the joint resolution was sent to Lincoln for his signature.

 

[struth]

Find a better dead horse. Those democrats, especially Hillary Clinton said they voted for it, not as a vote for war but to give the president a "big stick".

They didn't imagine that Bush would create bogus intelligence, and present it to the world, to justify the use of the power to go after terrorists, to go after the guy who "tried to kill my dad."

hahahh what the F? they didn't vote for war but they voted to all the PResident to use the military...hahaha what a weird thing to say

 

[postman]

And now you have to lie to yourself and claim Biden didn’t mandate the Clot Shot? Wow you are pathetic. It was ruled unconstitutional after years in the courts.

I have often said, that Biden mandated the shots. But Biden didn't force anybody to get them.

You can look up the difference in the meaning of the two words, that can't be used interchangeably.

 

[struth]

I'm sorry if you're ignorant of the McConnell rule for supreme court justices during an election cycle.

hahaha what a weird post, giving McConnell credit for creating this...

 

[postman]

huh? primaries are elections.

what in the world are you talking about? Whoever gets the most votes, for say, Senator, becomes Senator, same with member of the House.....same with who gets the EC votes for President from my state.

Until now, that's what the Dems believed in too.....

You fell of your face when you mentioned the EC with the house and senate.

Where the person who gets the most votes from the people, doesn't become president. It's the most votes from the EC, which overrepresents the small states.

 

[struth]

You fell of your face when you mentioned the EC with the house and senate.

Where the person who gets the most votes from the people, doesn't become president. It's the most votes from the EC, which overrepresents the small states.

Not sure how your state works, but mine, like the majority, gives the State to whoever wins the popular vote in state.

 

[postman]

It deliberately gave smaller states more power because without such measures, the big states would always pick the president, and the smaller ones would simply be ignored. This way, Hillary ignoring vital states in the final weeks cost her the election (oh, happy day).

Maybe you don't realize what you're saying.
It would give the big states AKA the majority of the people, to pick the president.

Instead they created a system, where the minority of the people could pick the president.