I would rather have a popular election, but it's a totally different campaign
With a totally different outcome.
Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?
With a totally different outcome.
Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?
With a totally different outcome.
Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?
I'm pretty sure his inner circle would get fired if they told him the truth.
It would be interesting to know how many Presidential elections in the past would have had different results without the Electoral College. If any.
Al Gore is the most recent, here is a handy little table from WIKI @Emjay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)
I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is. But it certainly favors liberals.
Trump is the imbecile we always said he was, and admits here that his only desire is the ease of 'winning'.
Popular vote simply turns us into a pure mobocracy officially - and all future national elections will be decided by NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and the Big Blue Meccas of the Northeast megalopolis.
The rest of rural America will no longer matter and will have zero voice in the direction of the country.
But that is the intent everyone wants now anyways isn't it?
So, that is our near-term reality.
The truth is, direct democracy, on a scale this large, could be as tyrannical as a dictatorship.
Popular vote only for the presidency?
No, thank you.
But that is in fact the tenor of the fight in this day... The sophistry of the cities being imposed upon rural America... And it is nearly a fact that is also the argument between liberalism and conservatism.
On one condition:
A person MUST achieve a majority of all votes cast to be elected on the first ballot. (Also: if at all possible, include a mandatory "none of the above" option.) That way, the vote cannot be split.
No majority, it goes to Congress the same way it would now.
The truth is, direct democracy, on a scale this large, could be as tyrannical as a dictatorship.
Popular vote only for the presidency?
No, thank you.
But that is in fact the tenor of the fight in this day... The sophistry of the cities being imposed upon rural America... And it is nearly a fact that is also the argument between liberalism and conservatism.And That.
Al Gore is the most recent, here is a handy little table from WIKI @Emjay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)
All votes cast, or all votes that could be cast?
If I were making that rule (not that I agree with it, because I don't) it would be "votes cast." "Could be cast" is an invitation to voter registration chicanery even worse than the mess we have in California today. "Well, if this (maybe) Million illegal aliens and felons over here could vote, then we only got 1/3 of the population voting." Nobody could ever get a simple majority of that.
So, on balance, I say let's keep the College.
True enough, but limiting it to only a majority of votes actually cast still allows a small minority to control things, and incentivizes election fraud to dissuade people from voting, or having their votes invalidated.
:facepalm2: He would have lost. Sometimes I wonder if he still doesn't understand the electoral process.
In fairness to Donald Trump, I'm not sure he would have lost if he played the game the way Hillary did, ignoring the rurals. Who knows how it would have gone if Trump had spent more time and money going after the 'burbs? He probably would have still gotten the rurals.
Lets let the dems rehash the election, shall we. They seem to have more experience at such things.
They do. And, I'd like to add, with very limited success. :smokin:
Absolutely correct, which is why I disagree with the whole notion of using a straight popular vote. There are too many ways to jigger the vote of the mob.
I have a practical objection as well. I remember from the 2000 election, there was all this caterwauling about the Florida recounts. If we here going to have that election decided by simple majority vote, that recount screaming would have been going on in all 51 jurisdictions. As it was, all the fight was successfully firewalled in just Florida.
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.â€
He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.
Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.â€
He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.
Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.
Yes, less travel, to be sure, several of us have made that point that one would only have to cater to those places.
Does he really think the large population centers in the US would have elected him, and he would have gotten more of that vote?
I guess so, since he said it.
But how?
Only if he ran to the left.
I guess we should all be thankful the EC was in place......
They do. And, I'd like to add, with very limited success. :smokin:
I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is. But it certainly favors liberals. California is a good example. A lot of California citizens are conservative to the point of wanting to secede but the huge population areas in liberal strongholds give the liberal candidate a huge advantage.
Something to think about, maybe.
Absolutely correct, which is why I disagree with the whole notion of using a straight popular vote. There are too many ways to jigger the vote of the mob.
I have a practical objection as well. I remember from the 2000 election, there was all this caterwauling about the Florida recounts. If we here going to have that election decided by simple majority vote, that recount screaming would have been going on in all 51 jurisdictions. As it was, all the fight was successfully firewalled in just Florida.
HORSESHIT.
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.â€
He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.
Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.
That's not how I understand it, @Emjay. If it weren't for the Electoral College, all of us in rural areas, and in more sparsely settled states like Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, much of Texas, etc., our votes wouldn't even matter. LA, NYC, Houston and a few other urban areas would determine the who wins. And, we would still have to see the endless commercials on TV and radio.
Edited to add: I made the mistake of answering before reading all of the other comments. I see my point has been made, and much better than I did.
Wow, Corbe. Thanks. I did not realize there were so many elections that would have been different with popular vote. Clinton didn't get popular vote either time.
Harry Truman would have lost and so would John Kennedy.
We wouldn't have had 'Gimme Jimmy" Carter.
Lincoln would have lost.
Lots more in older times but these are the most recent and relevant to us.
On balance ... I'm glad we got Harry Truman and maybe John Kennedy (even though I hated him)
We avoided algore but we got Clinton twice
And .... (drumroll) We would have had Hillary.
So, on balance, I say let's keep the College.
Even if he was saying that, the idea that Trump would win the liberal, big cities is nuts.
I thought that was one of the major criticisms of Trump, that he was a New York liberal?
I thought that was one of the major criticisms of Trump, that he was a New York liberal?
HORSESHIT.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SdaekVyZKQo/WCTASFG_g-I/AAAAAAAACFw/6Kkdt2-vvXMdFruqwKdvOqB1h0BXTjt3wCLcB/s1600/disaster.PNG)
I thought that was one of the major criticisms of Trump, that he was a New York liberal?
I'm sure you're right, the liberals in NYC and LA cities would have voted for him with his stances on immigration and the military as opposed to losing NY and CA states with his stances on immigration and the military. *****rollingeyes*****
You can't win individual liberals and lose liberal states unless you change your message, substantially, and if you change your message substantially you can't win conservatives.
Kelly Conway's alternate universe is well populated.............and some of those folks are right here on TBR.
Your expertise in all matters is truly stunning. I’m planning on building a ship to mars next Tuesday, if you’re not busy then can you give me a hand?
Kidding aside, bet you LOL’d when Trump said he was running for president and thought like, not a snowball’s chance in hell. Be honest now.
Do tell, how does a Trump that got your vote also get the crazy liberal vote of NYC?
Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?
Given Donald Trump’s ego I assume he believes he could have tailored a winning message even in LA, New York, Chicago. And given his energy and campaign style, whose to say he couldn’t have done it? After all, most people were saying he’d never win the primary, much less the presidency.
On top of that the hand outs would also be focused on those states. So govt contracts and everything else would gravitate towards those few states.
Sorry this is all mind numblingly wrong.
If the Presidential election went to a popular vote the voting patterns would be far different. You could take the election by winning less than 10 states. Which means the candidates would spend all their time in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Michigan, and Texas.
They would pretty much ignore the rest of the country. On top of that the hand outs would also be focused on those states. So govt contracts and everything else would gravitate towards those few states.
HORSESHIT.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SdaekVyZKQo/WCTASFG_g-I/AAAAAAAACFw/6Kkdt2-vvXMdFruqwKdvOqB1h0BXTjt3wCLcB/s1600/disaster.PNG)
I can’t answer that, because I’m not arguing for a popular vote. I was merely speculating about how politics would change presidential campaigns under such a system.
The electoral college is and remains a brilliant answer to mob rule. The founders got it right.
You can answer that question without advocating for a popular vote. As you said, we're speculating. You are speculating that Trump could win the popular vote. This would require him to win a sizeable chunk of liberal votes in NYC and other liberal big cities. So, how could he change his message to satisfy those liberals and you at tbe same time?
He is correct, it is a disaster for Democracy. Fortunately we are a Republic not a Democracy.
You can answer that question without advocating for a popular vote. As you said, we're speculating. You are speculating that Trump could win the popular vote. This would require him to win a sizeable chunk of liberal votes in NYC and other liberal big cities. So, how could he change his message to satisfy those liberals and you at tbe same time?
Sorry this is all mind numblingly wrong.
If the Presidential election went to a popular vote the voting patterns would be far different. You could take the election by winning less than 10 states. Which means the candidates would spend all their time in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Michigan, and Texas.
They would pretty much ignore the rest of the country. On top of that the hand outs would also be focused on those states. So govt contracts and everything else would gravitate towards those few states.
Yeah, he knows. He would be playing golf all day right now, and be raking it in for speeches and new branding opportunities, and generally be living the life of Riley.
Ivanka knows her ex-husband, and says he shouldn't run again. I think Trump would be a lot happier to be rid of all the bastards.
I’ve been wrong many times before. Like when I thought no way would Americans ever elect an inexperienced, community rabble rouser president. But, it happened, twice. I also never saw it coming that some conservatives would have a hard time distinguishing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Politics is weird that way.
So, sorry, I’m out of the predictions game.
I’ve been wrong many times before. Like when I thought no way would Americans ever elect an inexperienced, community rabble rouser president. But, it happened, twice. I also never saw it coming that some conservatives would have a hard time distinguishing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Politics is weird that way.
So, sorry, I’m out of the predictions game.
I’ve been wrong many times before. Like when I thought no way would Americans ever elect an inexperienced, community rabble rouser president. But, it happened, twice. I also never saw it coming that some conservatives would have a hard time distinguishing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Politics is weird that way.
So, sorry, I’m out of the predictions game.
I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is.
I’ve been wrong many times before. Like when I thought no way would Americans ever elect an inexperienced, community rabble rouser president. But, it happened, twice. I also never saw it coming that some conservatives would have a hard time distinguishing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
I find it fascinating that Conservatives willfully deceived themselves into believing a lifelong NYC Liberal Democrat was a staunch 'Conservative' simply because he was not the OTHER New York Liberal Democrat in a pantsuit.
I find it fascinating that Conservatives willfully deceived themselves into believing a lifelong NYC Liberal Democrat was a staunch 'Conservative' simply because he was not the OTHER New York Liberal Democrat in a pantsuit.
@INVAR Trump may not be a conservative to your liking but even you would surely agree (or maybe not) that he is light years away from The Other Woman.
As Democrats look ahead to the midterms and the 2020 presidential race, lawmakers and candidates are pushing the agenda even further to the left -- with bigger promises of sweeping government welfare programs ranging from guaranteed jobs to universal income.
Democrats ARE getting more liberal and more socialistic if that is possible. They WANT illegal immigrants. They want to disband ICE. They want Obamacare redoux and even worse. They want tax payers to pay for all their social programs that give them votes. They want to tax more. They hate business.
Trump is different in every meaningful way. He has not governed as a liberal at all. He's tried to keep illegals out and may succeed if the Supreme Court rules correctly. He's for departing illegals who commit crimes. He's against DACA.
He presided over a good, if not perfect, tax cut. He's pro-business and Capitalism. He appointed one good judge and may soon get a chance to reform the 9th Circuit.
I get not liking Trump but I don't get blind hatred that keeps people from getting even a glimpse of reality.
Oh good, another "Trump is conservative because...." comment that has nothing to do with the article and will take us into yet another Tastes Great, Less Filling argument.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/fokaptLvSWs6I/giphy.gif)
Oh, good, another pointless reply with another corny picture.
@INVAR Trump may not be a conservative to your liking but even you would surely agree (or maybe not) that he is light years away from The Other Woman.
As Democrats look ahead to the midterms and the 2020 presidential race, lawmakers and candidates are pushing the agenda even further to the left -- with bigger promises of sweeping government welfare programs ranging from guaranteed jobs to universal income.
Democrats ARE getting more liberal and more socialistic if that is possible.
They WANT illegal immigrants. They want to disband ICE. They want Obamacare redoux and even worse. They want tax payers to pay for all their social programs that give them votes. They want to tax more.
Trump is different in every meaningful way.
You're right, a plea not to go down a road so well traveled it's as deep as the Grand Canyon is a bleep waste of time here. Carry on with the dumbassery.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DeafeningDapperBuffalo-max-1mb.gif)
@INVAR Trump may not be a conservative to your liking but even you would surely agree (or maybe not) that he is light years away from The Other Woman.
As Democrats look ahead to the midterms and the 2020 presidential race, lawmakers and candidates are pushing the agenda even further to the left -- with bigger promises of sweeping government welfare programs ranging from guaranteed jobs to universal income.
Democrats ARE getting more liberal and more socialistic if that is possible. They WANT illegal immigrants. They want to disband ICE. They want Obamacare redoux and even worse. They want tax payers to pay for all their social programs that give them votes. They want to tax more. They hate business.
Trump is different in every meaningful way. He has not governed as a liberal at all. He's tried to keep illegals out and may succeed if the Supreme Court rules correctly. He's for departing illegals who commit crimes. He's against DACA.
He presided over a good, if not perfect, tax cut. He's pro-business and Capitalism. He appointed one good judge and may soon get a chance to reform the 9th Circuit.
I get not liking Trump but I don't get blind hatred that keeps people from getting even a glimpse of reality.
Trump stole this one to use a few years ago
(https://media.giphy.com/media/cNAc3wI3aXUnC/giphy.gif)
The bastard.
:amen:
COMMON SENSE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS.
Folks like INVAR are essentially nihilists, and are just as destructive to the future of conservatism as the most liberal members of Congress.
I usually don't ask Briefers to put the pipe down and back away but in this case @Jazzhead I'll make an exception. You got Invar all wrong. He takes 'clear' thinking to understand.
:amen:
COMMON SENSE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS.
Folks like INVAR are essentially nihilists, and are just as destructive to the future of conservatism as the most liberal members of Congress.
:amen:
COMMON SENSE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS.
Folks like INVAR are essentially nihilists, and are just as destructive to the future of conservatism as the most liberal members of Congress.
I think the problem he has with @INVAR is Invar won't yield an inch, and leftists trying to drag Briefers to the left with sweet-talk hate that. It's like a crucifix to a vampire.
Folks like INVAR are essentially nihilists, and are just as destructive to the future of conservatism as the most liberal members of Congress.
You guys give @INVAR way too much credit.
He is actually supporting the left by refusing to admit that there is any difference in Political parties. Republicans may not be conservative enough, they may be infuriating but they are not out to make American Socialist ...not again.
@Cyber Liberty @corbe You guys give @INVAR way too much credit.
He is actually supporting the left by refusing to admit that there is any difference in Political parties. Republicans may not be conservative enough, they may be infuriating but they are not out to make American Socialist ...not again.
I think the problem he has with @INVAR is Invar won't yield an inch, and leftists trying to drag Briefers to the left with sweet-talk hate that. It's like a crucifix to a vampire.
@Cyber Liberty @INVAR Everybody knows what INVAR is against which is everything. Nobody knows what he is for. He sees nobody he respects, nothing he likes, no joy and no hope.
He's a sad case. I took him off Ignore because he is so depressing but I've made the mistake of reading some of his posts lately.
@corbe likes him because he says stuff corbe is too nice to say.
I think I'll just walk away and not say what I'm thinking right now...
@Cyber Liberty @INVAR Everybody knows what INVAR is against which is everything. Nobody knows what he is for. He sees nobody he respects, nothing he likes, no joy and no hope.
He's a sad case.
I think you should say it so I don't. I'd rather you get in trouble than me.
Leading from behind again I see. :cool:
Thank you @Jazzhead I swore never to try to talk sense into @INVAR but then I did. It was a total waste of time.
Haven't you heard that's how Cyber likes it?
@Cyber Liberty @corbe You guys give @INVAR way too much credit.
He is actually supporting the left by refusing to admit that there is any difference in Political parties. Republicans may not be conservative enough, they may be infuriating but they are not out to make American Socialist ...not again.
Hey! That was supposed to be "our secret." :laugh: :police:
No, @Emjay , @INVAR is right on the money. There is no attributable difference. Left foot right foot.
There are no secrets on TBR.
I have a secret.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/I%27ve_Got_a_Secret_%28title_card%29.jpg/250px-I%27ve_Got_a_Secret_%28title_card%29.jpg)
Mine's an ancient Chinese secret.(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/14/c4/1514c40291c540e63b6c2efc3f885580.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/14/c4/1514c40291c540e63b6c2efc3f885580.jpg)
Who told you?!
Oh great.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/I%27ve_Got_a_Secret_%28title_card%29.jpg/250px-I%27ve_Got_a_Secret_%28title_card%29.jpg)
They were kung foo fighting about it.
:amen:
COMMON SENSE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS.
Folks like INVAR are essentially nihilists, and are just as destructive to the future of conservatism as the most liberal members of Congress.
You're just a walking and talking billboard of Isaiah 30:10 come to life lady.
The truth of the matter is that what I am for, you reject and are against or find offensive, preachy, judgmental, hostile, meaningless and stupid.
I speak the truth that people like you do not want to hear or even know exists.
Dead bones.
All votes cast, or all votes that could be cast?All votes cast, including "none of the above." Votes not cast are not counted.
Dead bones.
Nothing will change with the electoral college. I hardly see a point in bringing this subject up.
The process necessary to change it makes it impossible to change. That's by design
Pretty neat how that works!
By 'talking sense', you mean declaring things like war being peace, freedom being slavery, and ignorance being strength?
Leftists in states are working to short circuit this, by awarding their electors not to who wins the vote in their state, but to whomever wins the National Popular Vote. A number of states have already passed the laws.
Leftist politicians will always continue to try to do everything they can to subvert the Constitution and our electoral laws.
Doesn't matter whether it's the ways you described or by a Twitter rant.
They want the EC to go away.
@Hoodat. I mean like seeing reality. War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, etc.
That's not what I was talking about at all.
The fact is that even though one thing might not be perfect, it can certainly be far better than another thing.
That is just common sense.
All of @what's his names comparisons were just faulty and highly exaggerated.
It's like Noah trying to warn people of danger. Hey, goofballs, it's been raining for a while, maybe you should move to high ground.
Or, 'hey, I've built this boat...get in.' But they are all saying, I don't like the boat. It's ugly, the restrooms aren't all that, I think I'll just stay here on dry land.'
The ruthless evil of the left is becoming more and more obvious. They have literally drifted into socialism. They have the power of money from people like Soros and they have the entire media and Hollywood complex behind them.
We cannot let them get even an inch of power. Why isn't that obvious to everyone?
Even if we don't particularly like the current captain, he is not JUST as bad, as people like What's HIs Name love to say. He is not the same.
Nobody can name one actual thing that Trump has done which bears any resemblance to what Hillary, etal would have done.
If Trump is not doing everything you want, tough. He is trying, and he is holding the Fort.
Pity us all if someone doesn't hold the fort.
Sign a $1.whatever trillion dollar spending bill.
That would be Ezekiel 37, which is a very promising entry.
Isaiah 30:10 is the attitude that she has displayed towards any posts that shatter the vibes she wants to surround herself with.
We have many discussions with her and sometimes she likes to criticize believers, I believe because she knows that she isn't in right relationship with Christ. I don't say this lightly but there are many churches and believer who are watering down the Word of God so that they can assimilate into the World. Even the church in which I used to go which is partnering with Bethel Redding. They also are dabbling in the occult. Thinking that they can evangelize the New Age by adopting things of the New age and claiming it is Christianity. It isn't. At the very least taking this and that from the Jesus is love and leaving the most important instructions to the church. My comment concerning Ezekial 37 was a reply to you saying come alive. That prophesy was to the church to come alive. Resurrection to life. Here is an excellent commentary
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide2017-Eze/Eze-37.cfm (https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide2017-Eze/Eze-37.cfm)
and also:
Isaiah 25:8 and 2 Corinthians 3
Remember that this is not a forum for the discussion of religion.
@Chosen Daughter If I am the 'she' you refer to, it is courtesy to ping me. That being said, I will not indulge in religious discussions with you or anyone else.
I always avoided putting a church or religious bumper sticker on my car as I'm not the best driver in the world and I didn't want anyone cussing out Jesus because of my driving.
You, however, choose to display a message from God by your name while treating others with whom you disagree very shabbily.
Trump knows zip about the constitution and the reasoning of its articles.
Idiocracy has arrived.
@Chosen Daughter If I am the 'she' you refer to, it is courtesy to ping me.
You have got to be the most self-unaware person I have ever "talked" to. Courtesy to ping? Like "@what's his name" ? Treating others who you disagree with very shabbily? Crap on a cracker, lady.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/.Th4ismTMIFflO7IaMSOdA--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz02MDA-/http://lifesabargain.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Chocolate-Dipped-RITZ.jpg.cf.jpg)
Crap on a cracker with sprinkles on top.
You're just a walking and talking billboard of Isaiah 30:10 come to life lady.
The truth of the matter is that what I am for, you reject and are against or find offensive, preachy, judgmental, hostile, meaningless and stupid.
I speak the truth that people like you do not want to hear or even know exists.
Remember that this is not a forum for the discussion of religion.
When you tire of me doing so, say the word, I will move on. @MOD3
Don't ever change a thing. You're probably my favorite person from 'Bama....
Not to mention... In an avatar contest you are very high on the list.
edit:
Not not cybers stupid avatar. But Sigh's
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/sVCLy.jpg)
@Wingnut You've got some experience; I think you might agree that I'm a fairly forgiving kind of girl. Lying is a bridge too far for me.
I promise I will never lie to you. And those pants don't make your tush look ..... :cool:
Well, if you're sure....
(http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/81393414.jpg)
Do you save ALL the pictures I post? :silly:
And your forgiving nature is the stuff of legends. (Cough, cough)
Hah, I've posted that picture before. Speaking of legendary, it's the first one that comes up on a search of "fat woman in yoga pants".
I said "fairly forgiving". People who lie are not included in "fairly".
@Hoodat. I mean like seeing reality. War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, etc.
That's not what I was talking about at all.
The fact is that even though one thing might not be perfect, it can certainly be far better than another thing.
That is just common sense.
derriere.
When you tire of me doing so, say the word, I will move on. @MOD3
OK, @Emjay . Help me out here. Explain how a Republican espousing Democrat ideas "a far better thing than" a Democrat espousing Democrat ideas.
OK, @Emjay . Help me out here. Explain how a Republican espousing Democrat ideas "a far better thing than" a Democrat espousing Democrat ideas.
The very sad thing is, you cannot discuss the foundations of liberty itself without discussing the bible, religion and morality.
Discard that, and we have nothing but the politics of men to banter about.
Which is why we are now stuck having arguments with others that our inalienable rights are not rights at all, but government-granted privileges that can be "reasonably regulated".
Yeah, that's exactly the same phrase I searched on to get that picture from The People of Walmart. That's one famous derriere.
The very sad thing is, you cannot discuss the foundations of liberty itself without discussing the bible, religion and morality.
Discard that, and we have nothing but the politics of men to banter about.
Which is why we are now stuck having arguments with others that our inalienable rights are not rights at all, but government-granted privileges that can be "reasonably regulated".
The very sad thing is, you cannot discuss the foundations of liberty itself without discussing the bible, religion and morality.
Discard that, and we have nothing but the politics of men to banter about.
Which is why we are now stuck having arguments with others that our inalienable rights are not rights at all, but government-granted privileges that can be "reasonably regulated".
@Hoodat If you cannot see the difference between Trump's presidency and an Obama or Hillary presidency, I don't think anybody can help you out.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/sVCLy.jpg)
My two cents worth: yes, the Bible and morality have to be included in any discussion of our nation's founding, but hitting other posters over the head with "you're going to Rochester because you don't believe exactly the same way I do on the finer points of religion" kinds of comments shouldn't have any place in our discussions. Heck, the FFs didn't agree on a lot of religious things.
No one was talking about denominational doctrines and myriad catechisms. No one was saying anyone was being consigned to Rochester for referencing Isaiah or Ezekiel.
If posting a scriptural reference or discussing biblical concepts is verboten, then discussing liberty or Conservatism itself is a non-starter. We would be limited to simply discussing the politics of men and government, which is how our society got into this entire mess of a declining culture to begin with.
Liberty as was intended for us is wholly dependent upon a foundation of shared basic Judeo-Christian Biblical tenets agreed and adhered to by a whole people. The entire concept of self-governance when you read the Founders was predicated on the fact that the people had little need of an all-powerful monarchy presiding over every aspect of life that required a 'by your leave' grant of rulers. This people, unlike any other in the written history of man were already governed by a set of principles and morals found in their religion that negated a need for monarchy or dictatorship to keep order.
A people who personally refused to be governed by the God our Founders rendered obeisance, are a people that will be ruled by the tyranny of corrupt and vain men. Conservatism void of foundational (and yes Biblical) principles, is simply become a belief system whereby discussions will be limited to empowering government and men in power to be the ultimate authority in order to give us what we demand.
Which makes us no different than Democrats.
Invar, I'll apologize in advance: I didn't read your full comment. What I was responding, as I'm sure you know, was one poster accusing another poster of being un-Christian. Please tell me that how that advances anything? Well, except for ill will and closing down of minds.
@Emjay - Ah, but that's not the issue here. This thread is about Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. So again, what is the difference between a Republican espousing Democrat ideas and a Democrat espousing Democrat ideas? Trump may do a lot things better than Hillary or Obama, but that doesn't automatically make him right here. He isn't.
My two cents worth: yes, the Bible and morality have to be included in any discussion of our nation's founding, but hitting other posters over the head with "you're going to Rochester because you don't believe exactly the same way I do on the finer points of religion" kinds of comments shouldn't have any place in our discussions. Heck, the FFs didn't agree on a lot of religious things.
@Sanguine Of course, they didn't. Thomas Jefferson was my kind of agnostic. The story goes, he cut out the pieces of the Bible he didn't agree with. Who hasn't wanted to do that?
I spent most of my life in Church and in various Bible study groups.
Religious and Bible argument is probably the most futile thing we could do.
Aw, man. That's exactly what I thought of as soon as I saw edpc's crack, er, pic.
They say great minds think alike. Now I'm very concerned.