The GOP once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, & against moral relativism

Aryeh Jay · Nov 14, 2019

Ricky M said:
View attachment 266672

Well, if anything would make the Republicans get onto the total anti-gun bandwagon with the Democrats and completely abolish the 2nd Amendment and ban all civilian ownership of any type of firearm it would be the idea that armed patriots could remove them from power. Thanks for planting the seed…

Albion · Nov 14, 2019

durangodawood said:
The so called elector doesnt elect. Thats why the actual candidate is listed for you on your ballot.

No, the elector does elect--by casting his vote in the meeting of the state's members of the Electoral College. As you know, it takes 270 of those votes to elect a president.

In some places its illegal for the elector to do electing. In others, if they did pick a different candidate, there'd be a full on freak out among the voters.

It sounds as though you are doing a lot of guessing here. It is not illegal for an elector to pick a different person for whom to vote.

There are a couple of states that have passed legislation to replace an elector who tries that, and there are some states in which a defecting elector can be fined, but the issue of faithless electors is really not very significant.

As for any freak-out, there were some Democratic electors in Washington State who didn't vote for Hillary as expected. They did vote for unknowns for the most part, but of course they knew it wouldn't change the outcome of the election. I do not remember any reports of the people of Washington freaking out over it, although I am sure there was some resentment. Prior to 2016, though, there wasn't more than an occasional faithless voter going back quite a few elections.

durangodawood · Nov 14, 2019

Albion said:
No, the elector does elect--by casting his vote in the meeting of the state's members of the Electoral College. As you know, it takes 270 of those votes to elect a president....

Thats not "electing". Thats acting as a placeholder. Its a job 2 lines of code could do.

The original notion was you'd vote for trusted men who would meet up and use their own judgement to elect the pres. That system is dead.

rjs330 · Nov 14, 2019

Ricky M said:
The electoral college is there to make sure if the people vote the wrong way (according to the electors) the vote can be overturned. Tyranny of the masses ... usurped by the tyranny of the chosen.

I think you may need to brush up on your history.

rjs330 · Nov 14, 2019

durangodawood said:
Thats not "electing". Thats acting as a placeholder. Its a job 2 lines of code could do.

The original notion was you'd vote for trusted men who would meet up and use their own judgement to elect the pres. That system is dead.

Do you know if originally the electors of the state were all on the ballot?

durangodawood · Nov 14, 2019

rjs330 said:
Do you know if originally the electors of the state were all on the ballot?

I dont know, because the constitution did not specify exactly how the states would select electors.

What I do know is that every single US voter here looks at their ballot and marks their ballot for the candidate as named on the ballot, not the for elector.

rjs330 · Nov 14, 2019

durangodawood said:
I've never seen a ballot without the actual candidate printed on it to chose from. But I'm also not 120 years old.

I think it's because we vote for electors who have been chosen to vote for the candidates. The electors don't go out and stump for anyone. The public votes for who they want, the electors then cast their ballot for who they want. The public let's their will be known and generally the electors do what the public wants in that state. So I think the college isaluve and well.

durangodawood · Nov 14, 2019

rjs330 said:
I think it's because we vote for electors who have been chosen to vote for the candidates. The electors don't go out and stump for anyone. The public votes for who they want, the electors then cast their ballot for who they want. The public let's their will be known and generally the electors do what the public wants in that state. So I think the college isaluve and well.

The original vision of the elector was an esteemed person who possessed the wisdom to go to convention and choose the president for us.

Now a state's whole slate of electors could be replaced by two lines of code, as I noted earlier.

rjs330 · Nov 14, 2019

durangodawood said:
I dont know, because the constitution did not specify exactly how the states would select electors.

What I do know is that every single US voter here looks at their ballot and marks their ballot for the candidate as named on the ballot, not the for elector.

Yes and each state gets the electors as stated in the Constitution. So it still works. Democracy for president is a bad idea. The legislative branch is voted on by Democratic means and the states with the highest populations get the majority of power in the Representative branch. In the Senate the states have a balance of power, but if more people in the state are more liberal or conservative that particular ideology could control the Senate as well.

durangodawood · Nov 14, 2019

rjs330 said:
Yes and each state gets the electors as stated in the Constitution. So it still works. Democracy for president is a bad idea. The legislative branch is voted on by Democratic means and the states with the highest populations get the majority of power in the Representative branch. In the Senate the states have a balance of power, but if more people in the state are more liberal or conservative that particular ideology could control the Senate as well.

If democracy for president is a bad idea, then we shouldnt be voting in a presidential election.

Sparagmos · Nov 14, 2019

rjs330 said:
I do think that goes to show you that when faced strictly with character people will vote based on political ideals. There is no way you could convince me that anyone on the left would vote for a staunch conservative of good character over a staunch liberal with bad character.

Yes, but people could have picked one of the many other republicans who were running on similar platforms as Donald Trump. It would seem that it was his lack of character ppl were attracted to.

iluvatar5150 · Nov 14, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
Another excellent related example from the news.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

A friend commented that the Scientologists are going to love this.

Albion said:
There's nothing remarkable or revealing about a hate-filled essay published in an extremist magazine, is there?

The Atlantic isn’t an extremist magazine.

rjs330 said:
Student Religious Liberties Act
Sponsor: Elijah Haahr, District 134

This bill establishes the Student Religious Liberties Act, which prohibits a school district from discriminating against a student or parent on the basis of religious viewpoint or expression. Religious viewpoints must be treated like secular viewpoints on an otherwise permissible subject. Students may express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments, to be judged on ordinary academic standards. Students must be allowed to pray or engage in religious activities before, during, and after school to the same extent they engage in nonreligious activities and must be given access to facilities as other noncurricular groups, including the ability to announce or advertise meetings. Students must be permitted to wear and display religious messages and symbols to the same extent other messages and symbols are permitted.

The Missouri Alliance for Freedom supports this bill because it promotes our mission of individual liberty.

This bill has passed both the House and the Senate. It is now on the Governor's desk awaiting his signature.

I don't think this is so bad at all. It's not going to upend all that is taught in school. No discrimination of religious views or people is a good thing.

I’m skeptical that it’s as benign as it sounds - there are plenty of legitimate reasons to restrict religious content in classes, not the least of which being that people tend to get emotional over them, which leads to grading, objectivity, and critique problems on all sides. But neither do I think the text of the bill supports the claims made in the article. This passagefrom the article strikes me as especially stupid:

Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

Scientific accuracy is part of the substance of a question.

wing2000 · Nov 14, 2019

Albion said:
There's nothing remarkable or revealing about a hate-filled essay published in an extremist magazine, is there?

The author cited by the Op was a Republican until recently:

[...from a separate op-ed]
"For most of my life, I’ve been closely affiliated with the Republican Party. My first vote was cast for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I worked in his administration, as well as that of George H. W. Bush; for seven years, I was a senior adviser to President George W. Bush."

...

"I saw in the Republican Party a commitment to human freedom, democratic capitalism, and a traditional social order; to upward mobility through self-reliance; to the dignity of work; to the cultivation of character and respect for the Constitution; and to a foreign policy that placed a high priority on human rights, a strong national defense, and American leadership. Republicans argued for limited government, economic growth, and free trade. The party respected the role of religion in public life and envisioned America as a welcoming society to immigrants and the unborn. It was hardly a perfect party. Like all political institutions, it fell short of its ideals; it was also led by some deeply flawed individuals. Yet in the main, it stood for principles that I believe promote human flourishing."

What I’ve Gained by Leaving the Republican Party

Albion · Nov 15, 2019

durangodawood said:
Thats not "electing". Thats acting as a placeholder. Its a job 2 lines of code could do.

The original notion was you'd vote for trusted men who would meet up and use their own judgement to elect the pres. That system is dead.

Think whatever you want. I didn't explain how the Electoral College works in order to fight over it.

rjs330 · Nov 15, 2019

durangodawood said:
If democracy for president is a bad idea, then we shouldnt be voting in a presidential election.

Why not? It lets the electors know the people's will. A straight democracy creates tyranny of the masses. That's why the Constitution is set up the way it is. It does it's best to create a balance of power and not always give all the power to one group of people.

rjs330 · Nov 15, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Yes, but people could have picked one of the many other republicans who were running on similar platforms as Donald Trump. It would seem that it was his lack of character ppl were attracted to.

Then you don't know his voters.

Albion · Nov 15, 2019

rjs330 said:
Yes and each state gets the electors as stated in the Constitution. So it still works. Democracy for president is a bad idea. The legislative branch is voted on by Democratic means and the states with the highest populations get the majority of power in the Representative branch. In the Senate the states have a balance of power, but if more people in the state are more liberal or conservative that particular ideology could control the Senate as well.

You touch upon an interesting point there. To all the people who want the Electoral College done away with and direct popular voting take its place, why then should we continue to elect the Senators and Congressmen on a regional basis? They make policy that affects all of us, irrespective of residence.

Think of how sensible it would be if every voter in every state got to vote on Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of "The Squad." The same logic applies with that as applies in the case of the direct popular vote for president.

Belk · Nov 15, 2019

rjs330 said:
Why not? It lets the electors know the people's will. A straight democracy creates tyranny of the masses. That's why the Constitution is set up the way it is. It does it's best to create a balance of power and not always give all the power to one group of people.

I fail to see what that has to do with the electoral college which is still a representational republic, not a straight democracy.

durangodawood · Nov 15, 2019

rjs330 said:
Why not? It lets the electors know the people's will. A straight democracy creates tyranny of the masses. That's why the Constitution is set up the way it is. It does it's best to create a balance of power and not always give all the power to one group of people.

Wait. The people's will must be accounted for.... but also the people's will is tyranny?

If the people's will is tyranny, then we shouldnt be voting for pres. Someone else's will should prevail.

Albion · Nov 15, 2019

durangodawood said:
Wait. The people's will must be accounted for.... but also the people's will is tyranny?

I believe that the point there was about the unrestrained will of a temporary majority. That's not the same as talking about the will of the people or representative government.

The GOP once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, & against moral relativism

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Facilitator

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Senior Member

Dis Member

Facilitator

Similar threads