What happened to the Democratic Party?

[hadit]

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.

No, they created a system whereby the minority of the people would have their voices heard. The big states still have more EC votes than the small states, the disparity merely makes it a LITTLE more equal and forces the candidates to pay some attention to them. Rhode Island, for example, will never pick the president, but all the small states put together actually have a voice that the candidates can't ignore.

The bottom line here is that the big states don't just get to fling their weight around when it comes to electing the president, and that's a good thing.

 

[postman]

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

And I would defend it if it was made in a small ma and pa lab in their basement.

It's the drug, not the manufacturer.

 

[struth]

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.

um maybe you live in a different country. I live in the United STATES, where the majority of the States pick who the President is. There are fifty states, not just two or three

 

[postman]

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.

As I said, it doesn't address the 27 states that ratified it.
They weren't republican.

 

[postman]

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

They voted for the president to use the military to go after 9-11 terrorists.

Bush/Cheney made up phony intelligence to tie Iraq with 9-11 terrorism. Remember Colin Powell at the United Nations.

What Powell called "bullshit". But was forced to present.

 

[lafayette]

Don’t ask a question until you answer the first one.

You can’t? Then just admit defeat instead of dragging it out troll.

You have lost again? Not surprising.

 

[struth]

As I said, it doesn't address the 27 states that ratified it.
They weren't republican.

HAHAH wow, how werid, it clearly discusses the States in the article as well. It's clear you didn't even bother to read it.

Yes, States ratified it, states many states in teh South lead by Reconstruction Govts

 

[struth]

They voted for the president to use the military to go after 9-11 terrorists.

Bush/Cheney made up phony intelligence to tie Iraq with 9-11 terrorism. Remember Colin Powell at the United Nations.

What Powell called "bullshit". But was forced to present.

S.J.Res.2 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution​

https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-joint-resolution/2#:~:text=Authorization%20for%20Use%20of%20Military%20Force%20Against%20Iraq%20Resolution%20%2D%20Authorizes,after%20making%20available%20to%20the

no, they voted to allow him to use force against Iraq.

It's so weird you keep lying

 

[postman]

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

Biden wasn't senate majority leader.
What he said was just an "opinion", not a rule.

Keep up with reality.

 

[marvin martian]

Look at the responses from the DemoKKKrats on this thread. They are 100% radicalized, to a man.

The DemoKKKrat party is an existential threat to the security of the planet.

 

[struth]

Biden wasn't senate majority leader.
What he said was just an "opinion", not a rule.

Keep up with reality.

who cares? He was Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee. It was a rule he made for the Committee. Blaming McConnell for following the Chairman of the Judicial Committee's rule is laughable, and weird

 

[postman]

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

Let me make it simple for you. (using unitary numbers)

One state has 3 people, and gets 3 EC votes.
The next state has 6 people, and gets 4 EC votes.
The next state has 9 people, and gets 5 EC votes

Call it the 3:1 compromise.

 

[struth]

Let me make it simple for you. (using unitary numbers)

One state has 3 people, and gets 3 EC votes.
The next state has 6 people, and gets 4 EC votes.
The next state has 9 people, and gets 5 EC votes

Call it the 3:1 compromise.

what? what a weird post. That makes no sense what so ever.

 

[theHawk]

The ones Trump invented?

“Invented”?

Tell us, how much money is he making off his “invention”?

You know the reality, he never forced people to take them.

 

[postman]

what? what a weird post. That makes no sense what so ever.

I know. Why small states have up to three times the voting power as larger states was a constitutional compromise they came up with, along with the great compromise and the 3/5ths compromise, to get 'er done.

And all in the name of preserving slavery.

 

[theHawk]

And I would defend it if it was made in a small ma and pa lab in their basement.

It's the drug, not the manufacturer.

Uh huh, sure. So you defend the drug, why? The manufacturer is the one claiming it is safe and effective, with no science to backup their claims since the ten year trial studies were not done.

In fact the manufacturer was given immunity from any liability for the drug because they knew it was experimental and dangerous. You support them being immune from any liability. You support tax dollars paying for “the drug” to the big pharmaceutical company. You cannot separate the product from the manufacturer since they are the ones making the money off it.

 

[postman]

“Invented”?

Tell us, how much money is he making off his “invention”?

You know the reality, he never forced people to take them.

And republicans used to be so proud of Trumps "operation warp speed"

Now they're running away from Trump, who told the head of the FDA, he wanted the vaccine approved by Friday, or he would fire him.

No pressure.

 

[rightwinger]

“Invented”?

Tell us, how much money is he making off his “invention”?

You know the reality, he never forced people to take them.

You know
Those shots that Trump brags about rushing to the market

The shots Conservatives refused to take because they said they kill people

 

[theHawk]

And republicans used to be so proud of Trumps "operation warp speed"

Now they're running away from Trump, who told the head of the FDA, he wanted the vaccine approved by Friday, or he would fire him.

No pressure.

Wrong.

We booed him when he promoted it. Unlike you all we aren’t cult followers of our leaders.

 

[postman]

Uh huh, sure. So you defend the drug, why? The manufacturer is the one claiming it is safe and effective, with no science to backup their claims since the ten year trial studies were not done.

And you wonder why it's so hard to get replacements for lethal injection drugs.