(01-29-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hamilton argued for giving the electors, not the states, the ability to elect the president.

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

My point initial point is simple - there is more to the EC than just state sovereignty.

There is this thing called 'rules of construction'. In terms of legislation or other codification (which the Constitution certainly is) there is one extremely important one: When a body considers language in an earlier version, but does not include it prior to enactment of the statute, it can be presumed that the limitation was not intended by the legislature.

Great, Hamilton considered the concept above. I will grant you everyone at that convention noted it.

Funny thing --- it was not included.

Funny, thank you for evidence.

Let's repeat: the idea that you promote above as 'evidence' that your thesis should be considered shows that it *was* considered. And the historical record shows that it was, in fact, rejected.

Seriously dude, your thrashing here doesnt help you.

Quote:No matter how foundational you feel state sovereignty was (and I agree it was foundational), there is sufficient evidence that other considerations were very important in develop the EC today. So when we discuss pros/cons or modifications to the EC, it isn't irrelevant to discuss them in relation to concepts outside of state sovereignty - yet I have been basically told that this type of conversation isn't allowed.

You are free to talk about them all you want. To say it is a consideration in light of the Founding Fathers is just stupid; note above.

You are free to promote the concept all you want. But, in fact, at the present time it is a non-issue in terms of the current setup and operation.

If *you* want to make the issue into individual fairness -- knock yourself out there, lad. But, dont tell me that the system has the concept of the individual voter of a nation at its core -- it is simply wrong in history and in the facts.

I mean, good god your fing 'proof' above actually detracts from your thesis that the the Founders intended that to be inherent in it. At least give *that* a fing break.

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

Yes, we all understand that you, as a progressive, think that law, including Consitutional issues, be decided on a crap foundation. That is, things should be decided at the very most important levels according to the 'feeling de jour'.

Especially when the common text nor the history have a inkling to promote your outcome.

Give us something new to gnaw on.

Quote:But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

Oh, here is an idea when 'changing times' *require* a change in law or Constitutional scope --- hang onto your hat, it is an astounding one ---- ready?

Repeal the old one and enact a new one.

Fing astounding insight, isnt it?

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

The concept of 'legal principle de jour', which lad seemingly supports above, is a cute one in that pursuit. Law says X, oh, it really doesnt mean X, it really should mean Y. Lolz. Quite the inconvenience stopper there, that one.....

(01-29-2020 05:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

Yes, we all understand that you, as a progressive, think that law, including Consitutional issues, be decided on a crap foundation. That is, things should be decided at the very most important levels according to the 'feeling de jour'.

Especially when the common text nor the history have a inkling to promote your outcome.

Give us something new to gnaw on.

Quote:But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

Oh, here is an idea when 'changing times' *require* a change in law or Constitutional scope --- hang onto your hat, it is an astounding one ---- ready?

Repeal the old one and enact a new one.

Fing astounding insight, isnt it?

Yeah, but the left acts like the kid who wants to take the ball away when the others are happy playing the game.

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

(01-29-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

Wait, are you equating noting that the EC is imperfect with the position that a legal revision would not need to be made to change how POTUS is elected?

I’ve never argued that any laws or the constitution should be ignored in regards to the EC - again, you love making it seem like I’m making arguments I’m not.

I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times. An evaluation is just that, evaluating something, not altering it. I’m not then extrapolating to whether the EC should be implemented differently without structural/legal change - yet it very much seems like you think I am arguing that point.

(01-29-2020 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times.

What do you mean by "shouldn't influence"? Surely you don't mean that we shouldn't consider the original intent. I certainly hope that's not how you do your job evaluating someone else's design!

Tanq over here losing it over states rights while Congress demonstrates that a president can literally do whatever they want as long they can hold 34 votes in the Senate.

(01-29-2020 08:17 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq over here losing it over states rights while Congress demonstrates that a president can literally do whatever they want as long they can hold 34 votes in the Senate.

I knew you couldnt resist lapsing into a drive by ad hom. Good for you chuckles.

Your choice of extreme wording in your last sentence is cute as well. Funny that, you feel the need to make an extreme language statement that, when read literally (note the correct use of the word 'literally'), is really pretty much an asinine whine.

Perhaps next time when their might be a better example of behavior, say, like..... well.... coordinating a break in, you might feel better. Or better yet, when there is, say, something like...... hmmm..... an actual felony like perjury or obstruction of justice.

But if yelling at the terrible orange man and jumping to a fro like the apes do in the opening sequence of 2001 A Space Odyssey (which your second sentence really kind of boils down to) makes you feel better, then ----- go for it sparkles.

When you decide to actually comment using real facts and cogent comments instead of a panoply of drive by ad-hom and dumb*** rhetoric, I will be more than happy to engage you as an adult.

(01-29-2020 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

Wait, are you equating noting that the EC is imperfect with the position that a legal revision would not need to be made to change how POTUS is elected?

I’ve never argued that any laws or the constitution should be ignored in regards to the EC - again, you love making it seem like I’m making arguments I’m not.

I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times. An evaluation is just that, evaluating something, not altering it. I’m not then extrapolating to whether the EC should be implemented differently without structural/legal change - yet it very much seems like you think I am arguing that point.

lad, if you and your ilk are so gung-ho on changing it, then do so. One doesnt need any 'intent' other than the present day to do so.

The problem I have is that many of your ilk, you explicitly included since you have explicitly noted it previously, is that you (and your ilk) are perfectly comfortable with 'reinterpreting' (or simply ignoring) specific text based on some ill-formed notion of 'fairness' *and* the sentence you just wrote above which states 'well that was great for then, this is now and it is too much trouble and effort to change the (law, Constitution) to reflect what my ilk wants *today*'

The sentence above is the picture perfect prelude to that. And, to be blunt, your follow up doesnt note simply 'changing the law' with no notion to original intent -- you typed "whether a current law is appropriate for for current times." Funny, that comment that you typed actually includes the 'reinterpretation beyond the intent' that progs love to do as much as Mardi Gras loves beads. If you mean simply 'repeal the law', then I have no issue with your statement. But I read yor comment as including both the 'lets work to change the law explicitly' with the all beloved 'lets just use modern interpretation to redefine it out of existence'. Your comment includes both prongs --- whether you meant it that way or not I dont know, but the comment is ill-defined enough to allow that, so I responded to it in that manner. If you did not mean the 'change through interpretation' just say so, and I would agree with you.

And, if you think the EC is good for changing and eliminating the state sovereignty aspect, then by all means work to change it.

(01-29-2020 08:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:17 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq over here losing it over states rights while Congress demonstrates that a president can literally do whatever they want as long they can hold 34 votes in the Senate.

I knew you couldnt resist lapsing into a drive by ad hom. Good for you chuckles.

Your choice of extreme wording in your last sentence is cute as well. Funny that, you feel the need to make an extreme language statement that, when read literally (note the correct use of the word 'literally'), is really pretty much an asinine whine.

Perhaps next time when their might be a better example of behavior, say, like..... well.... coordinating a break in, you might feel better. Or better yet, when there is, say, something like...... hmmm..... an actual felony like perjury or obstruction of justice.

But if yelling at the terrible orange man and jumping to a fro like the apes do in the opening sequence of 2001 A Space Odyssey (which your second sentence really kind of boils down to) makes you feel better, then ----- go for it sparkles.

When you decide to actually comment using real facts and cogent comments instead of a panoply of drive by ad-hom and dumb*** rhetoric, I will be more than happy to engage you as an adult.

Lol

(01-29-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

Wait, are you equating noting that the EC is imperfect with the position that a legal revision would not need to be made to change how POTUS is elected?

I’ve never argued that any laws or the constitution should be ignored in regards to the EC - again, you love making it seem like I’m making arguments I’m not.

I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times. An evaluation is just that, evaluating something, not altering it. I’m not then extrapolating to whether the EC should be implemented differently without structural/legal change - yet it very much seems like you think I am arguing that point.

lad, if you and your ilk are so gung-ho on changing it, then do so. One doesnt need any 'intent' other than the present day to do so.

The problem I have is that many of your ilk, you explicitly included since you have explicitly noted it previously, is that you (and your ilk) are perfectly comfortable with 'reinterpreting' (or simply ignoring) specific text based on some ill-formed notion of 'fairness' *and* the sentence you just wrote above which states 'well that was great for then, this is now and it is too much trouble and effort to change the (law, Constitution) to reflect what my ilk wants *today*'

The sentence above is the picture perfect prelude to that. And, to be blunt, your follow up doesnt note simply 'changing the law' with no notion to original intent -- you typed "whether a current law is appropriate for for current times." Funny, that comment that you typed actually includes the 'reinterpretation beyond the intent' that progs love to do as much as Mardi Gras loves beads. If you mean simply 'repeal the law', then I have no issue with your statement. But I read yor comment as including both the 'lets work to change the law explicitly' with the all beloved 'lets just use modern interpretation to redefine it out of existence'. Your comment includes both prongs --- whether you meant it that way or not I dont know, but the comment is ill-defined enough to allow that, so I responded to it in that manner. If you did not mean the 'change through interpretation' just say so, and I would agree with you.

And, if you think the EC is good for changing and eliminating the state sovereignty aspect, then by all means work to change it.

I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.

I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

Wait, are you equating noting that the EC is imperfect with the position that a legal revision would not need to be made to change how POTUS is elected?

I’ve never argued that any laws or the constitution should be ignored in regards to the EC - again, you love making it seem like I’m making arguments I’m not.

I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times. An evaluation is just that, evaluating something, not altering it. I’m not then extrapolating to whether the EC should be implemented differently without structural/legal change - yet it very much seems like you think I am arguing that point.

lad, if you and your ilk are so gung-ho on changing it, then do so. One doesnt need any 'intent' other than the present day to do so.

The problem I have is that many of your ilk, you explicitly included since you have explicitly noted it previously, is that you (and your ilk) are perfectly comfortable with 'reinterpreting' (or simply ignoring) specific text based on some ill-formed notion of 'fairness' *and* the sentence you just wrote above which states 'well that was great for then, this is now and it is too much trouble and effort to change the (law, Constitution) to reflect what my ilk wants *today*'

The sentence above is the picture perfect prelude to that. And, to be blunt, your follow up doesnt note simply 'changing the law' with no notion to original intent -- you typed "whether a current law is appropriate for for current times." Funny, that comment that you typed actually includes the 'reinterpretation beyond the intent' that progs love to do as much as Mardi Gras loves beads. If you mean simply 'repeal the law', then I have no issue with your statement. But I read yor comment as including both the 'lets work to change the law explicitly' with the all beloved 'lets just use modern interpretation to redefine it out of existence'. Your comment includes both prongs --- whether you meant it that way or not I dont know, but the comment is ill-defined enough to allow that, so I responded to it in that manner. If you did not mean the 'change through interpretation' just say so, and I would agree with you.

And, if you think the EC is good for changing and eliminating the state sovereignty aspect, then by all means work to change it.

I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.

I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

I guess you do not understand the word 'if'. Good fing grief. I suggest you actually read it, and perhaps 'cypher' the word "if", before stamping off in a huff.

Today from Schiff: it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign ?

Uhhhhhhh....... 2016........ Crossfire Hurricane........

(01-29-2020 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Today from Schiff: it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign ?

Uhhhhhhh....... 2016........ Crossfire Hurricane........

Please, enlighten us.

(01-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 06:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I could care less that you bring up the EC.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that it 'should be considered in light of X', when it isnt there as a basis in the slightest.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that history says that the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when that isnt the fact.

I do care when supposedly smart people start saying that is history says the EC 'should be considered in light of X', when the factoid shows that it was considered, and explicitly rejected.

And bluntly, I do care when supposedly smart people say 'well perhaps we should just ignore the intent of a law, or just ignore the law altogether' based on concepts of 'fair', or the stupid ass argument that 'well today isnt yesterday.'

If, in fact the law should be ignored, or the intent should not hold sway, logic dictates that in a just society one removes that law. It is either an idiotic audience, or a sneaky audience, that promotes the ideal of 'ah, just ignore it', and 'ah, too much trouble to change it.'

If it is 'too much trouble' to remove it, pretty much sounds like the change isnt all the gd smashing tea and crumpets the proponents of change seemingly think it really is, doesnt it?

Kind of goes hand in hand to my comments to opponents of the 2nd Amendment: if you dont like like, change it.

Kind of in line with your comments to opponents of Obamacare as well, isnt it?

Wait, are you equating noting that the EC is imperfect with the position that a legal revision would not need to be made to change how POTUS is elected?

I’ve never argued that any laws or the constitution should be ignored in regards to the EC - again, you love making it seem like I’m making arguments I’m not.

I argued that the original intent shouldn’t influence our evaluation of whether a current law is appropriate for for current times. An evaluation is just that, evaluating something, not altering it. I’m not then extrapolating to whether the EC should be implemented differently without structural/legal change - yet it very much seems like you think I am arguing that point.

lad, if you and your ilk are so gung-ho on changing it, then do so. One doesnt need any 'intent' other than the present day to do so.

The problem I have is that many of your ilk, you explicitly included since you have explicitly noted it previously, is that you (and your ilk) are perfectly comfortable with 'reinterpreting' (or simply ignoring) specific text based on some ill-formed notion of 'fairness' *and* the sentence you just wrote above which states 'well that was great for then, this is now and it is too much trouble and effort to change the (law, Constitution) to reflect what my ilk wants *today*'

The sentence above is the picture perfect prelude to that. And, to be blunt, your follow up doesnt note simply 'changing the law' with no notion to original intent -- you typed "whether a current law is appropriate for for current times." Funny, that comment that you typed actually includes the 'reinterpretation beyond the intent' that progs love to do as much as Mardi Gras loves beads. If you mean simply 'repeal the law', then I have no issue with your statement. But I read yor comment as including both the 'lets work to change the law explicitly' with the all beloved 'lets just use modern interpretation to redefine it out of existence'. Your comment includes both prongs --- whether you meant it that way or not I dont know, but the comment is ill-defined enough to allow that, so I responded to it in that manner. If you did not mean the 'change through interpretation' just say so, and I would agree with you.

And, if you think the EC is good for changing and eliminating the state sovereignty aspect, then by all means work to change it.

I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.

I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

I guess you do not understand the word 'if'. Good fing grief. I suggest you actually read it, and perhaps 'cypher' the word "if", before stamping off in a huff.

Lol.

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws. I doubt any system for electing a POTUS for a country this large will be perfect, there are just too many competing interests. But if we’re going to have a conversation about our current system, it should be honest - as soon as some flaws were pointed out, y’all got really ******* riled up. I mean, just look at Tanq’s screeds.

As I’ve stated multiple times, I’m not advocating for getting rid of the EC - I think it still works just fine. I can, however, see that times could change and we could eventually get to a place where the EC may not be the best solution for representing the voice of the nation in selecting the lead executive. What sort of system would we select as an alternative? Who knows.

Edit: sometimes I feel like you conservatives forget that we can just have a conversation about topics in here without flags being planted on positions and sides being taken.

(01-29-2020 11:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Today from Schiff: it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign ?

Uhhhhhhh....... 2016........ Crossfire Hurricane........

WOOOOWWWW u really need to get your own facts not listen to whitehouse twitter. schiff hypothetical was not ask doj to investigate,,, was ask MEDVEDEV to investigate.

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws.

So recognizing flaws but not changing anything? Complaining but not wanting to do anything about it? Sounds like you just want to have a gripe session.