Is This The New Normal?

[camille70]

What I presented is facts. The color of the state doesn’t mean there is a difference in how the federal government’s restrictions impact the lives of those living in poverty from one state to another.

And if you want more facts, the very-little spoken of fact that over 70% of black homes now have no father figure is where most of the problems comes from, another result of the government forcing black citizens into poverty by changing the dynamic of those families. No father figure means no role models except gangs and rappers, neither one offering poor black youth much-needed guidance to help them get out of the generational poverty they are locked into. One solution is to remove those stipulations that a mother will get more money if there isn’t a male money-earner in the family and go back to being hand-ups rather than hand-outs.

The 'Absent Black Fathers' Myth is Peddled Again. Can We ...

All sorts of oft-cited statistics about fatherhood in America are false—and anyway broken families are the consequence, not the cause, of the exact kinds of ...

www.newsweek.com

Meanwhile, among fathers who live with their children, black dads are in many ways the most involved in their kids' lives. "Black fathers (70 percent) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60 percent) and Hispanic fathers (45 percent)," the CDC study found. Also, more black fathers than white fathers took their children to or from activities every day and helped their kids with homework every day.

The lead researcher told me this study marked "the debunking of the black-fathers-being absent myth."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf

 

[A New Dawn]

No it isn’t.

Democracy only means power of the people. Demos=people and kratia=power or rule of law. Theres nothing there that says it has to be a majority rule. It is any form of government where the power of the state is vested in the People.

Our constitution starts with the words “We the People.” It doesn’t say “We, the representatives of our constitutional republic.”

We the people use a democratic system to elect our representatives who also then use a simple majority vote to pass laws on our behalf. When the first congress came together to establish and frame the constitution they decided on what made it into the document through simple voting and majority rule.


Unless a majority before them already put in protections for the minority that cannot be rescinded.

Every single country on earth has a constitution their legislators and leaders have to abide by. That isn’t the defining feature of a democracy. Even Saudi Arabia has a constitution that their monarch has to follow. The defining feature of any democracy is the power being vested in the people.


Those same representatives use a democratic process with simple majorities to pass legislation that affect the entire country. This is democracy in action.

No, they don’t use a simple majority to pass legislation. They use a combination of simple majority, supermajority, and unanimous consent. .

 

[A New Dawn]

The 'Absent Black Fathers' Myth is Peddled Again. Can We ...

All sorts of oft-cited statistics about fatherhood in America are false—and anyway broken families are the consequence, not the cause, of the exact kinds of ...

www.newsweek.com

Meanwhile, among fathers who live with their children, black dads are in many ways the most involved in their kids' lives. "Black fathers (70 percent) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60 percent) and Hispanic fathers (45 percent)," the CDC study found. Also, more black fathers than white fathers took their children to or from activities every day and helped their kids with homework every day.

The lead researcher told me this study marked "the debunking of the black-fathers-being absent myth."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf

I never used the word “fatherless”, and if the father isn’t living in the home, then he, by definition, isn’t living in the home, no matter the reason. That does not imply that the father isn’t involved, but it DOES mean he is not as involved as one who lives in the home.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, the US is a Constitutional Republic.

Which is a type of democracy.

This is a little like arguing that this isn't a horse, it's a Galloway pony.

A republic is a system of representative government where power comes from the people through their elected representatives. A constitutional republic is one where the power of these representatives is bounded by a set of laws (a la, a constitution).

There are republics that are not democracies and there are democracies that are not republics. It's a non-exclusive categorisation.

The founding fathers purposely made sure that we were NOT a democracy because democracies always end in totalitarianism or communism.

The US founding fathers knew nothing of communism, given that even the oldest forms of such post date the writing of the US constitution by ~50 years. And the forms of totalitarianism they were familiar with were monarchic and/or theocratic.

Mob rule is the norm in a democracy, and we see how that was starting to happen under the left’s push for “democracy” over the Constitutionally guaranteed republic.

The only place “democracy” is utilized in our nation is that is how our representatives are elected. Otherwise we are NOT a democracy.

Huh? Do you realise you've said, in effect: The only place where we are a democracy is where we practice democracy to elect our government leaders.


The mind reels at the basic failures of history and civics.

 

[7thKeeper]

A democracy is majority rule, period.

No, it's not. It's when people hold the power of governance, typically through representatives voted into power by said people.

A republic utilizes elected representatives who govern according to an overarching body of laws . Because we are NOT a democracy we have the electoral college.

Electoral college doesn't exclude democracy. And again, this seems to be a bunch of talking points given to people, because someone else made the EXACT same arguement, in another thread. And again, it's funny that you only consider the presidency in the US when it comes to this. You elect your senators/congress people through electoral college?
But it is funny how the office of the president seems to be the only one that matters... Hmm.... Makes ya think...

IN a democracy whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. Because we have an overarching body of laws that determines how we are governed, instead of majority rule, we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic that uses the democratic process ONLY to elect our representatives except in the case of the president.

No it doesn't. You've just made up that definition.

But I do see why some people are trying to make this factually false argument. It's actually the topic you responded to originally. It lets people handwave away the slide away from democratic norms without having to argue for weakening of those. "Well we aren't a democracy!" is the solution to defending something hard to defend, no matter how false that is.

 

[7thKeeper]

Which is a type of democracy.

This is a little like arguing that this isn't a horse, it's a Galloway pony.

"What are you eating there?"
"Fish."
"That's not a fish, that's salmon!"

The mind reels at the basic failures of history and civics.

It does explain a few things though.

 

[A New Dawn]

"What are you eating there?"
"Fish."
"That's not a fish, that's salmon!"

It does explain a few things though.

Y’all are just so anxious to make this a democracy so you can get rid of things that keep your people from holding onto power, like the electoral college. How many times have I heard “But he didn’t win the popular vote so he is an illegitimate president”? Taking away the electoral college would go a long way towards making this a democracy. However, again, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that one of the hallmarks of a republic is individual rights while a democracy is just focused on the majority rule, hence the hyperfocus on the popular vote.
[/QUOTE]

 

[7thKeeper]

Y’all are just so anxious to make this a democracy so you can get rid of things that keep your people from holding onto power, like the electoral college.

Who's "Y'all"? Electoral college is part of your democratic system, though it only exists for the presidency. Like mentioned before, it doesn't exist for the senate or congress. But again, you try to make it just about the electoral college, which doesn't even invalidate that the USA uses a form of democracy to govern itself.

How many times have I heard “But he didn’t win the popular vote so he is an illegitimate president”?

Probably very few times and from no one who matters. I do think it's an archaic system and has lived way past it's usefulness. I think part of the objection to its removal from one part of the US populace stems more from the fact that the overall popular vote has tended to favour one party.

Taking away the electoral college would go a long way towards making this a democracy. However, again, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that one of the hallmarks of a republic is individual rights while a democracy is just focused on the majority rule, hence the hyperfocus on the popular vote.

It wouldn't change it one way or another., whether or not the electoral college exists. I don't understand the obsession with it. The USA is already a democracy. Though you are sliding away from those principles. Again, stop making up definitions for what a democracy means. It's not only a direct democracy. Being a republic isn't an exclusionary thing from a democracy. We're a republic and a democracy for example.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Y’all are just so anxious to make this a democracy so you can get rid of things that keep your people from holding onto power, like the electoral college.

Who’s y’all? We are a democracy. You call it a republic? That’s a democracy. We don’t need to change anything to be a democracy. We already are one.

How many times have I heard “But he didn’t win the popular vote so he is an illegitimate president”?

That’s got nothing to do with whether a republic is a form of democracy or not. First, that doesn’t make him illegitimate, it makes him unpopular. Second, an electoral college doesn’t mean our system isn’t democratic. That’s just an extra step within the democratic process of this country. The power of the state is still vested in We the People. That’s what makes this republic a democracy.

We the People rule ourselves. That’s what makes this a democracy.

Taking away the electoral college would go a long way towards making this a democracy.

No, it wouldn’t because we’re already there. If we change nothing this is already a democratic system of governance.

However, again, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that one of the hallmarks of a republic is individual rights while a democracy is just focused on the majority rule, hence the hyperfocus on the popular vote.

I don’t know where you got this idea that only a majority rule is the definition of democratic government. The definition of democratic governance is that the people in charge only rule by the consent of the governed.

 

[A New Dawn]

Who’s y’all? We are a democracy. You call it a republic? That’s a democracy. We don’t need to change anything to be a democracy. We already are one.


That’s got nothing to do with whether a republic is a form of democracy or not. First, that doesn’t make him illegitimate, it makes him unpopular. Second, an electoral college doesn’t mean our system isn’t democratic. That’s just an extra step within the democratic process of this country. The power of the state is still vested in We the People. That’s what makes this republic a democracy.

We the People rule ourselves. That’s what makes this a democracy.


No, it wouldn’t because we’re already there. If we change nothing this is already a democratic system of governance.


I don’t know where you got this idea that only a majority rule is the definition of democratic government. The definition of democratic governance is that the people in charge only rule by the consent of the governed.

Y’all don’t seem to recognize that most of what I said is what is said by the leftist leaders. How many states have tried to create laws to skirt the electoral college? How many times did Hillary Clinton go on stage and say that Trump is an illegitimate president? And getting rid of the electoral college would change everything since four states would determine the outcome of the election for the entire nation. It removes any concerns for the needs of the the vast majority of the nation by catering to the whims of the woke megacities. I know that’s what everyone on the left wants, but that is why we have an electoral college, so the voices of the whole nation are heard.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Y’all don’t seem to recognize that most of what I said is what is said by the leftist leaders. How many states have tried to create laws to skirt the electoral college? How many times did Hillary Clinton go on stage and say that Trump is an illegitimate president? And getting rid of the electoral college would change everything since four states would determine the outcome of the election for the entire nation. It removes any concerns for the needs of the the vast majority of the nation by catering to the whims of the woke megacities. I know that’s what everyone on the left wants, but that is why we have an electoral college, so the voices of the whole nation are heard.

Seriously, 4 (ish) states deciding it all is what happens now. Every Trump election (win or loss) invoved only the outcome of GA, MI, WI, AZ, PA, NV and two EVs in NE and ME. NC teased us with potential importance, but went to Trump all three times.

My vote and yours did not matter in my red state and you in NY state. If we had a direct election (the so called "popular vote" then we would cancel directly, but we would actually matter just as much as any pair of offsetting voters within PA do now.

 

[A New Dawn]

Seriously, 4 (ish) states deciding it all is what happens now. Every Trump election (win or loss) invoved only the outcome of GA, MI, WI, AZ, PA, NV and two EVs in NE and ME. NC teased us with potential importance, but went to Trump all three times.

My vote and yours did not matter in my red state and you in NY state. If we had a direct election (the so called "popular vote" then we would cancel directly, but we would actually matter just as much as any pair of offsetting voters within PA do now.

I was referring to the sheer size of the population in those four (or five, maybe) states, California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Granted Pennsylvania is a swing state, but there are lots of others that come close that would overwhelm the 35-ish red states.

With the electoral college, we have the same representation in the election as we do in Congress. If we trust that representation to make laws for us, we should trust it for voting for the president. Mostly it comes down to the states that swing in all elections. Of course, to make it really interesting, all states should swing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Y’all don’t seem to recognize that most of what I said is what is said by the leftist leaders. How many states have tried to create laws to skirt the electoral college?

How many? How many have been successful?

How many times did Hillary Clinton go on stage and say that Trump is an illegitimate president?

I don’t really care what private citizen Hillary Clinton has said about Trump.

And getting rid of the electoral college would change everything since four states would determine the outcome of the election for the entire nation.

That’s what we have now. What do you think swing states are? A state of 40 million people like CA has virtually no impact on the national election while much smaller states are pretty much the only ones that matter. Eliminating the EC would give every single vote the same weight. Elections wouldn’t be decided by a few select states. They’d be decided nationally by popular vote. The most popular candidate across the entire country would win but I can see and understand why the right is opposed to that with their terribly unpopular president and policies.

It removes any concerns for the needs of the the vast majority of the nation by catering to the whims of the woke megacities. I know that’s what everyone on the left wants, but that is why we have an electoral college, so the voices of the whole nation are heard.

It’s funny how other countries with democratic systems and electoral politics but without an electoral college don’t seem to have this problem. The people vote and the candidate with the most votes wins. Simple.

 

[A New Dawn]

I don’t really care what private citizen Hillary Clinton has said about Trump.

And I have a bridge to sell you.

But whatever you do or don’t think of her, she is still invited to speak at conventions and still stands in front of millions of people and still repeats a big fat lie. Funny how she denies the outcome of an election and it is met with loud cheers. One would think that that would be a forbidden thing to do.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

And I have a bridge to sell you.

But whatever you do or don’t think of her, she is still invited to speak at conventions and still stands in front of millions of people and still repeats a big fat lie. Funny how she denies the outcome of an election and it is met with loud cheers. One would think that that would be a forbidden thing to do.

Right and Trump has said the same and worse about his predecessor. Trump has called into question the results of every election he’s ever been in. Even the ones he’s won. So you tell me who is claiming illegitimacy in our elections and just how much that really bothers you.

 

[A New Dawn]

Right and Trump has said the same and worse about his predecessor. Trump has called into question the results of every election he’s ever been in. Even the ones he’s won. So you tell me who is claiming illegitimacy in our elections and just how much that really bothers you.

I guess the point went over your head.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I guess the point went over your head.

What was it again, that we’re a republic and not a democracy? I don’t know what you think Hillary Clinton or her comments has to do with that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was referring to the sheer size of the population in those four (or five, maybe) states, California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Granted Pennsylvania is a swing state, but there are lots of others that come close that would overwhelm the 35-ish red states.

With the electoral college, we have the same representation in the election as we do in Congress. If we trust that representation to make laws for us, we should trust it for voting for the president. Mostly it comes down to the states that swing in all elections. Of course, to make it really interesting, all states should swing.

In a direct election the states don't vote en block (that's what they do in 48 winner-take-all states + DC currently). They would just report votes for each candidate. A vote for a Republican means the same no matter what state they are in. Same for the Democrat (or an independent). In the last presidential election Trump had more voters casting ballots for him than Harris did. They got those numbers by adding up all of the ballots across the country with no regard for which state they voted in. Campaigns would be different as they would focus on maximizing the number of voters that could be convinced to switch to their party, or get more occasional voters to come out for them -- JUST LIKE IN EVERY NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE US.

 

[A New Dawn]

In a direct election the states don't vote en block (that's what they do in 48 winner-take-all states + DC currently). They would just report votes for each candidate. A vote for a Republican means the same no matter what state they are in. Same for the Democrat (or an independent). In the last presidential election Trump had more voters casting ballots for him than Harris did. They got those numbers by adding up all of the ballots across the country with no regard for which state they voted in. Campaigns would be different as they would focus on maximizing the number of voters that could be convinced to switch to their party, or get more occasional voters to come out for them -- JUST LIKE IN EVERY NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE US.

Yes, I understand how popular elections work. However this past election was an exception to the rule in that sooo many people were upset with Biden’s policies and the state of the union, and with a candidate that couldn’t elucidate anything she saw wrong with Biden’s policies and wouldn’t change anything, that many voted against their own party. In a normal presidential election year, the democrat candidate normally wins the popular election, as I said above, because of the sheer population of the top 4 or 5 blue states. Meaning, drumroll please, if it was left to the popular vote, the concerns of the vast majority of the country, the portions the left doesn’t care about and often has disdain for, are ignored.

 

[7thKeeper]

Yes, I understand how popular elections work. However this past election was an exception to the rule in that sooo many people were upset with Biden’s policies and the state of the union, and with a candidate that couldn’t elucidate anything she saw wrong with Biden’s policies and wouldn’t change anything, that many voted against their own party. In a normal presidential election year, the democrat candidate normally wins the popular election, as I said above, because of the sheer population of the top 4 or 5 blue states. Meaning, drumroll please, if it was left to the popular vote, the concerns of the vast majority of the country, the portions the left doesn’t care about and often has disdain for, are ignored.

Umm... No, that is very very VERY wrong. Because every vote counts, both sides would need to court every possible vote everywhere. It literally would mean both parties would have to take everyone into consideration.

And again, this applies only the presidency, I still do not understand why you keep sticking to that as if it's the only thing that matters. As if there's no representation through the Senate and Congress.