Honest Question: How is Trump a 'threat to Democracy'?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It's always so funny when they emphasize "a THIRTY-FOUR times convicted felon"...until you realise the 34 counts related to 34 payslips paid to a lawyer. 

 

You can't make it up.

34 fraudulent payslips. 1 fraudulent payslip maybe could be explained by "oops!' 34 not so much.

[OneManShow]

22 hours ago, diceman said:

I would like hear truth and facts from both sides.

There is no truth in politics, what is there all lie no matter what party wins, there are always 2 parties. Never ending story.
Look at your two hands, left & right. But both hands belong to one man. Sometimes left, sometimes right. Regarding international policy considering benefits of own party is their priority, otherwise both parties destination will be the same (however sometimes wrong decisions could lead to great avoidable mistakes). 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, DustyShoes said:

You are correct: the EC is undemocratic, which is why it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the USA.

 

A majority of people are ignorant to the fact that the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The latter is governed by law, the former by popularity. If no EC, democrats would win every time simply from CA and NY; the votes of people in lessor populated states would be rendered useless.

 

The reason -- and beauty -- of the EC is to give equal weight (and representation) to ALL votes in ALL states, which is where the powers are "supposed" to remain. Hence, the United States of America.

 

Democrats would love to abolish the EC and shift the powers to the Fed Govt, as they try to do every day; bullies on a good day, mafia on other days.

 

Oh... And that pesky constitution. How they scheme every day to render it, too, useless and insignificant, their finger on the shredder button every waking minute, to establish their bully pulpit.

 

When teaching the U.S. constitution is mandatory in all schools from elementary through college, the USA will perhaps have a chance to reverse course.

 

 

We have states in Australia too - six of them, plus two territories.

 

Those states have been subordinate to the Australian government since Federation. The sky never fell in. Conservative and socialist governments have come and gone, by majority vote.

 

It's probably an overestimate to say 1% of Australians have actually read our Constitution.

 

Perhaps you guys would find life to be simpler if you did not have so many laws and lawyers.

[thesetat2013]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

"Non-Americans" (non-citizens?) are already not allowed to vote. What Trump and the Republicans are doing is making it much more difficult for citizens to register and vote by imposing ID requirements that many citizens, especially minorities and the poor, cannot meet. You hurt my feelings when you say I post "rubbish." 

Yes, both parties place allies in key positions when they take office. I never said they didn't. I guess this comment of yours was in response to my mention of gerrymandering, which I agree both parties do. Oh, more accusations of "rubbish"! You hurt my feelings again! 

Trump has always wanted and has consistently tried to become a dictator. More hurt feelings! 

Trump does not care about the US Constitution. As any dictator would, he will try to do what he wants without any regard to the Constitution. Just one example of that is what led up to the Jan 6 Insurrection. He tried to have his vice president, Pence, accept votes from states from Electors who were not appointed by their state. Pence, however, knowing the limits of his constitutional authority, refused to do so. Then, the insurrection ensued. And accusations of posting "garbage" also hurts my feelings! 

If you'll re-read my initial post, you'll see I prefaced all of my remarks with "IMO," which means "in my opinion." Most everything could be "supported by facts," if by that you mean "references to online sources," but as I'm sure you know, all of us can find online sources for almost anything we want, true or not. That's the state of the online world today. I guess you could say much of it is "rubbish" or "garbage." 

What a stupid thing to use as an excuse. How to know if the person voting is really an illegal or a citizen without imposing you show proof you are eligible to vote. 

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, itsari said:

The system survived the American cival war from 1861 to 1865 where over 600,000 soldiers lost there lives .

I am not seeing your point of 60 killed in Las Vegas 

I am saying the Second Amendment is no longer fit for purpose. I doubt the people who framed it foresaw a situation where any wingnut could walk into a school and start killing schoolchildren.

The same with the Electoral College. It is now used to thwart the popular vote.

One way or another, I suspect Americans will have another civil war after November 5.

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, thesetat2013 said:

What a stupid thing to use as an excuse. How to know if the person voting is really an illegal or a citizen without imposing you show proof you are eligible to vote. 

I don't object to requiring someone trying to vote to identify themselves. What I do object to is making the list of acceptable IDs so restrictive that many people, especially minorities and the poor, can't easily get them. And, these types of rules are made, IMO, specifically to limit the voting ability of such people. 

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Electoral system keeps it fair. 

Clinton beat Trump by 1 million votes. How is that fair?

[thesetat2013]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't object to requiring someone trying to vote to identify themselves. What I do object to is making the list of acceptable IDs so restrictive that many people, especially minorities and the poor, can't easily get them. And, these types of rules are made, IMO, specifically to limit the voting ability of such people. 

So you think is ok to walk in to vote and show your student ID? Or anything that can be made at home on your computer easily. 

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Electoral system keeps it fair. 

Clinton beat Trump by 1 million votes. How is that fair?

The Electoral System is no longer fair. Maybe it was when it was instituted, and each state felt it should be unique and only a part of the United States. Then, electors from each state were required to ride on horseback to Washington, DC, to cast the votes for their state. Now, each state can post its results electronically. And, that, IMO, leads to having the president of the USA elected democratically by popular vote and not as a republic, with votes from each individual state. 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Clinton beat Trump by 1 million votes. How is that fair?

 

One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president – since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold.

 

Aside from the fact that there are valid and practical reasons for the Electoral College system, there are other pragmatic reasons for maintaining the status quo. First of all, if we had a pure popular vote system, as many on the Left are now proposing, it would become quite difficult—because of third-party (and more) candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. For example, in the election of President Clinton in 1992, Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was elected president. However, he only received a plurality – 43 percent – of the popular vote, and Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, received almost 19 percent. President Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in the 1996 election either, but because he won an Electoral College majority, he was elected President of the United States both times.

This raises the question: What would happen if we did away with the Electoral College and instead implemented a system whereby a person could win the presidency with a plurality of the popular vote? If this were to occur, every special interest group would have their own candidate, and the field of candidates would be enormous. Thus, EVERY election year would be utter chaos.

 

https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

So you think is ok to walk in to vote and show your student ID? Or anything that can be made at home on your computer easily. 

I think proof of citizenship and some kind of personal ID should be required when registering to vote. The most important thing is that the requirement for these IDs should be made as easy to get as possible, with the object of registering and allowing voting from as many citizens as possible. 

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president – since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold.

 

Aside from the fact that there are valid and practical reasons for the Electoral College system, there are other pragmatic reasons for maintaining the status quo. First of all, if we had a pure popular vote system, as many on the Left are now proposing, it would become quite difficult—because of third-party (and more) candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. For example, in the election of President Clinton in 1992, Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was elected president. However, he only received a plurality – 43 percent – of the popular vote, and Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, received almost 19 percent. President Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in the 1996 election either, but because he won an Electoral College majority, he was elected President of the United States both times.

This raises the question: What would happen if we did away with the Electoral College and instead implemented a system whereby a person could win the presidency with a plurality of the popular vote? If this were to occur, every special interest group would have their own candidate, and the field of candidates would be enormous. Thus, EVERY election year would be utter chaos.

 

https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

I disagree. Here is my opinion in more detail... 
Rung & Bill:  US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com)

Edited 10 hours ago by WDSmart

[cdemundo]

January 6th.

[thesetat2013]

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I think proof of citizenship and some kind of personal ID should be required when registering to vote. The most important thing is that the requirement for these IDs should be made as easy to get as possible, with the object of registering and allowing voting from as many citizens as possible. 

So then you blame Trump for not making it easy to get the correct identification so a person who is eligible to vote can show proof of it. This is something never talked about in the news and instead Dems use the same comment you did about trying to make it more difficult to vote. Who is to say that the government would not make access to having proof would be difficult if the laws made it so you needed that proof to vote. You assume a great deal just to use as ammunition against Trump

[cdemundo]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president – since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold.

 

Aside from the fact that there are valid and practical reasons for the Electoral College system, there are other pragmatic reasons for maintaining the status quo. First of all, if we had a pure popular vote system, as many on the Left are now proposing, it would become quite difficult—because of third-party (and more) candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. For example, in the election of President Clinton in 1992, Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was elected president. However, he only received a plurality – 43 percent – of the popular vote, and Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, received almost 19 percent. President Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in the 1996 election either, but because he won an Electoral College majority, he was elected President of the United States both times.

This raises the question: What would happen if we did away with the Electoral College and instead implemented a system whereby a person could win the presidency with a plurality of the popular vote? If this were to occur, every special interest group would have their own candidate, and the field of candidates would be enormous. Thus, EVERY election year would be utter chaos.

 

https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

Iowa and Delaware? 

Are you from the US? Those are not the lowest population states.

The combined population of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana is about 2.7 million people.

The population of Los Angeles County is about 10 million.

 

So those 2.7 million get 12 electoral votes, way out of proportion to their populations.

 

As far as candidates always focussing on the most populous states, now they focus on the swing states to the exclusion of most others. What's the difference.

In any event, the focus would probably continue to be on purple states where a lot of voters live who could be moved to change the party they vote for.

 

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, thesetat2013 said:

So then you blame Trump for not making it easy to get the correct identification so a person who is eligible to vote can show proof of it. This is something never talked about in the news and instead Dems use the same comment you did about trying to make it more difficult to vote. Who is to say that the government would not make access to having proof would be difficult if the laws made it so you needed that proof to vote. You assume a great deal just to use as ammunition against Trump

I do blame Trump and all conservative Republicans for making it more difficult to vote in an attempt to prevent and discourage voters of the type that would vote against them. They had been doing this before Trump came into the picture, but Trump and his supporters have continued and even escalated these types of actions.

[thesetat2013]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I do blame Trump and all conservative Republicans for making it more difficult to vote in an attempt to prevent and discourage voters of the type that would vote against them. They had been doing this before Trump came into the picture, but Trump and his supporters have continued and even escalated these types of actions.

Again... you are making no sense. Since Republicans have not been in office for the last few years. You should instead blame Biden/Harris for not making such actions easier so that none can argue the point and point fingers at someone who has not been in control of this for many years. 

[BangkokReady]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I see. So the Founding Fathers could foresee muskets would be replaced by weapons, which at Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured hundreds, wielded by a single person.

 

Wasn't the right to bear arms about not being a victim to tyranny?  If the right to bear arms means that the people can rise up and defend themselves against a tyrant, what good would a musket do against whatever the government wields?

[connda]

Honest Question: How is Trump a 'threat to Democracy'?

 

Because it's common knowledge that Trump "is actually Hitler" and is a "threat to Democracy" and "he needs to be stopped by any means from becoming president again." 

Or so the progressive liberal trope is spun via the DNC and the media empire that they control.  Hence, don't be surprised if assassination attempt 3, 4, and 5 are right around the corner.  The Democrats have whipped their base into a frenzy where the fringe lunatics are thinking of ways to "save Democracy" by removing the former President permanently.  Funny that they same people who scream about the dangers of "hate speech" are fully engaged in spewing hatred toward Trump.
"Well that's different grrrrrr." 
Yeah, of course it is. Ah-huh.
 

If Trump gets into office it will be four years similar to his last four years in office, with the exception that he'll probably replace the head of the DoJ and then play the same Lawfare games that the Democrats have done for the last four years - which is what these people really mean - he a danger to their personal freedom when he turns on the "quid pro quo" and starts investigating those who played Lawfare games with him.  The Lawfare genie should have never been uncorked from its bottle - but?  Too late now.  Fools.

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Iowa and Delaware? 

Are you from the US? Those are not the lowest population states.

The combined population of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana is about 2.7 million people.

The population of Los Angeles County is about 10 million.

 

So those 2.7 million get 12 electoral votes, way out of proportion to their populations.

 

As far as candidates always focussing on the most populous states, now they focus on the swing states to the exclusion of most others. What's the difference.

In any event, the focus would probably continue to be on purple states where a lot of voters live who could be moved to change the party they vote for.

 

Well, if you can read obviously you're at an advantage, the mention of Iowa and Delaware, which btw was made by the American Paula Ryan, does not claim these are the lowest population states, rather she, correctly, states they have a lower population than Florida or Texas.

 

https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

 

Either way, her arguments are correct. The electoral college provides fairness and should be retained.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

So then you blame Trump for not making it easy to get the correct identification so a person who is eligible to vote can show proof of it. This is something never talked about in the news and instead Dems use the same comment you did about trying to make it more difficult to vote. Who is to say that the government would not make access to having proof would be difficult if the laws made it so you needed that proof to vote. You assume a great deal just to use as ammunition against Trump

We already know that states like Texas make it difficult for some to vote. For instance, a hunting license is OK, but a student ID from the state system is not. Driver's license bureaus can also issue IDs For poor people who can't afford to miss work, obviously there should be special hours outside of work hours for people to get their voter ID. Texas has ruled that out. As it has ruled out increasing the number of offices that can issue such IDs.

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, connda said:

If Trump gets into office it will be four years similar to his last four years in office, with the exception that he'll probably replace the head of the DoJ and then play the same Lawfare games that the Democrats have done for the last four years - which is what these people really mean - he a danger to their personal freedom when he turns on the "quid pro quo" and starts investigating those who played Lawfare games with him.  The Lawfare genie should have never been uncorked from its bottle - but?  Too late now.  Fools.

 

Incredibly well put and 100% accurate.

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

Again... you are making no sense. Since Republicans have not been in office for the last few years. You should instead blame Biden/Harris for not making such actions easier so that none can argue the point and point fingers at someone who has not been in control of this for many years. 

Republicans have been "in office" for the past number of years. It's not the president or the federal government that makes the rules for voter registration and IDs. It's each state's legislature. And in Republican-controlled states, these rules have become more and more restrictive over the last ten years or so,

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, connda said:

Honest Question: How is Trump a 'threat to Democracy'?

 

Because it's common knowledge that Trump "is actually Hitler" and is a "threat to Democracy" and "he needs to be stopped by any means from becoming president again." 

Or so the progressive liberal trope is spun via the DNC and the media empire that they control.  Hence, don't be surprised if assassination attempt 3, 4, and 5 are right around the corner.  The Democrats have whipped their base into a frenzy where the fringe lunatics are thinking of ways to "save Democracy" by removing the former President permanently.  Funny that they same people who scream about the dangers of "hate speech" are fully engaged in spewing hatred toward Trump.
"Well that's different grrrrrr." 
Yeah, of course it is. Ah-huh.
 

If Trump gets into office it will be four years similar to his last four years in office, with the exception that he'll probably replace the head of the DoJ and then play the same Lawfare games that the Democrats have done for the last four years - which is what these people really mean - he a danger to their personal freedom when he turns on the "quid pro quo" and starts investigating those who played Lawfare games with him.  The Lawfare genie should have never been uncorked from its bottle - but?  Too late now.  Fools.

Once again, for your benefit:

US election officials decry Trump's threat to jail them if he returns to White House

 U.S. election administrators and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris' campaign condemned on Monday threats by Donald Trump to jail "corrupt" election officials if he wins on Nov. 5, accusing him of intimidation and inciting potential violence.

They were responding to a social media post by the Republican presidential candidate on Saturday in which he threatened a range of people with prosecution if they were to engage in voter fraud in the 2024 election. 

https://archive.ph/6657v

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Republicans have been "in office" for the past number of years. It's not the president or the federal government that makes the rules for voter registration and IDs. It's each state's legislature. And in Republican-controlled states, these rules have become more and more restrictive over the last ten years or so,

And of course, they've been engaging more and more in shameless gerrymandering. Ohio actually defied its  Constitution to gerrymander congressional districts to favor Republicans.

 

Ohio Voters Ask State Supreme Court to Hold Ohio Redistricting Commission in Contempt
Once again defying the court’s orders, the commission resubmitted a legislative plan that violated Ohio’s ban on partisan gerrymandering.

Petitioners in Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission today filed a motion, which asks the Ohio Supreme Court to reject the legislative maps adopted on May 6 by the Ohio Redistricting Commission and hold the commission in contempt of court. For the fifth time, the commission had defied the court’s orders to produce maps that meet the Ohio constitution’s standards and instead submitted districts already found to be unconstitutional.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ohio-voters-ask-state-supreme-court-hold-ohio-redistricting-commission

[watthong]

36 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

January 6th.

 

Absolutely!!! We US citizens are not going to allow this ever again. And we're ready to challenge any lunatic, cult, nutjobs that claim otherwise. Go ahead and try your sequel, we'll see you next Jan6th. (PS bring some toilet paper or wear diaper, like your master, next time.)

 

Edited 10 hours ago by watthong

[thecyclist]

Honest question:What is your IQ ?

Don't say higher than yours.I am willing to bet a tidy sum that it isn't. 

[cdemundo]

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Well, if you can read obviously you're at an advantage, the mention of Iowa and Delaware, which btw was made by the American Paula Ryan, does not claim these are the lowest population states, rather she, correctly, states they have a lower population than Florida or Texas.

 

https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

 

Either way, her arguments are correct. The electoral college provides fairness and should be retained.

I admit I didn't study the document from the Family Foundation.

That is a "Christian conservative" organization and I don't need a convoluted justification of the electoral college.

The small states get their equalizer by having two senators.

 

The point of the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college is exactly about the state populations and the lowest population states are the most significant.

Democracy generally is conceived as "one person - one vote" the electoral college violates this principal egregiously.

 

 

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

I admit I didn't study the document from the Family Foundation.

That is a "Christian conservative" organization and I don't need a convoluted justification of the electoral college.

The small states get their equalizer by having two senators.

 

The point of the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college is exactly about the state populations and the lowest population states are the most significant.

Democracy generally is conceived as "one person - one vote" the electoral college violates this principal egregiously.

 

 

 

Well, think about it, if you didn't have the electoral college you could have someone winning the presidency with 30% of the vote. So highly extremist candidates would be the norm then. That would be the true end result of "one person one vote" without system refinement.

 

It's all moot anyway, you would need fourth fifths of states to perform constitutional surgery and those states that benefit from the EC would not support that.

Edited 10 hours ago by Cameroni

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, think about it, if you didn't have the electoral college you could have someone winning the presidency with 30% of the vote. So highly extremist candidates would be the norm then. That would be the true end result of "one person one vote" without system refinement.

 

It's all moot anyway, you would need fourth fifths of states to perform constitutional surgery and those states that benefit from the EC would not support that.

Ranked voting, anyone?