Jump to content
Null

January 6th Committee Hearings


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I am sorry but,,, this is incorrect.  States rights had nothing to do with it.  You should read more on the debates at the time.  States votes to ratify had more to do with it.

The founders mistakenly distrusted the masses.  They genuinely believed the mob would get the government.  After all, it hadn't been that long since they themselves were the "mob".  They believed the wealthy were more morally equipped to lead society.  They forgot about the nature power.

My greatest problem with Jefferson is, he went along with this nonsense believing that violence would always prevent tyranny.  Either really stupid or, really disingenuous for a slave owner.

There is some truth in what you said - this is why land owners and only men were originally granted the rights to vote, and I completely agree that was wrong, but was not terribly unusual by any cultural standards at the time.  There was also some rationale behind the electoral college due to  technology and the ability to count votes on a national level. 
 

I was referring to the apportionment of votes based on the population of the states.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





14 hours ago, GoAU said:

I completely disagree.  - having the 20-30 biggest metropolitan areas decide the presidency is ludicrous.   I would say the electoral system (regarding the votes being proportioned based on population is even more relevant today than it was in 1776.  The cultural divide between urban and rural areas is just as if not more pronounced now than it was then.  
 

 

Therefore, you are perfectly fine with one person's vote counting more than another?  Our divide grows because it is profitable for that divide to grow.  Our differences are not remotely close to being as great as some would have you to believe.

The rub for me is this.  If any individual state passed a law that elected their governor in that same manner, that law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  The court would conclude that it disenfranchised people.  I can't square that with our Presidential electoral college structure. 

Ofcourse, until we bust up the 2 party system that is strangling the life from our system of government by its dependence on dark money thru PACS and purchased influence, we are like a ship adrift at sea.

Edited by AU9377
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Therefore, you are perfectly fine with one person's vote counting more than another?  Our divide grows because it is profitable for that divide to grow.  Our differences are not remotely close to being as great as some would have you to believe.

The rub for me is this.  If any individual state passed a law that elected their governor in that same manner, that law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  The court would conclude that it disenfranchised people.  I can't square that with our Presidential electoral college structure. 

Ofcourse, until we bust up the 2 party system that is strangling the life from our system of government by its dependence on dark money thru PACS and purchased influence, we are like a ship adrift at sea.

The recent propensity for the use of EO’s have changed everything and exasperated either side and creates the divide.  Case in point; both Trump and Biden instituted EO’s just to undo the previous administration with the approval of their respective party.  The Congress has to take back the writing of laws for our country.  The Executive Branch should not have that much authority.  Do this and the electoral college makes sense.

For me, this DEI heavy administration have gone absolutely mad with the power of the EO that address our education system to teach gender identity without considering what the American public would agree to.  I doubt seriously if teaching school children in gender identity was brought in the Congress we would have a different out come than how the EO’s have been written.  JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Therefore, you are perfectly fine with one person's vote counting more than another?  Our divide grows because it is profitable for that divide to grow.  Our differences are not remotely close to being as great as some would have you to believe.

The rub for me is this.  If any individual state passed a law that elected their governor in that same manner, that law would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  The court would conclude that it disenfranchised people.  I can't square that with our Presidential electoral college structure. 

Ofcourse, until we bust up the 2 party system that is strangling the life from our system of government by its dependence on dark money thru PACS and purchased influence, we are like a ship adrift at sea.

Yeah, because we sure wouldn't want people to be disenfranchised (see below).  By abandoning the current system, which balances popular votes and state representation all that would matter would be a handful of metropolitan areas

image.png

The cultural differences between liberal cities and conservative areas are definitely there, and you are fooling yourself if you feel otherwise.     I have lived in mostly rural and suburban areas, but frequently travel to large cities like Chicago for business, and it's like being in 2 different countries. 

  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since we've veered off into how we decide who is President...

What I do like about the electoral college is that it is consistent with giving every state an official say in who is elected President of our Republic of 50 states.

** Academic exercise alert **

If there were a good way to draw congressional districts in a nonpartisan, unbiased way, I wonder if this could work:

State popular vote: winner gets 2 EVs for the Senate representation.

The rest of the state's EVs are awarded by congressional district.

It wouldn't necessarily parallel that the winning HoR candidate's party would be the same as the party of the presidential candidate who carried the district. My district in 2020 was split (D for prez, R for HoR).

D.C., just leave it as is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 4:05 PM, icanthearyou said:

The choice is not binary.  Do you understand?

You obviously do not. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Yeah, because we sure wouldn't want people to be disenfranchised (see below).  By abandoning the current system, which balances popular votes and state representation all that would matter would be a handful of metropolitan areas

image.png

The cultural differences between liberal cities and conservative areas are definitely there, and you are fooling yourself if you feel otherwise.     I have lived in mostly rural and suburban areas, but frequently travel to large cities like Chicago for business, and it's like being in 2 different countries. 

It does feel that way at first glance, but I have lived in Chicago and in New Orleans.  I am from rural Georgia went to Auburn for undergrad.  If you compare someone living in an inner city housing project with someone living in a middle class neighborhood in Newnan, Georgia, they are very different.  However, large metro areas aren't just made up of poverty and crime.  They are also home to everyone from middle class families to affluent trust funders to college campuses.  That is part of the challenge with finding common ground among so many different interests.

The reason our economy soared after WWII are the same core reasons as to why China's economy has soared over the past 3 decades.  We had cheap labor that was trainable and the natural resources to support manufacturing.  We literally opened the doors to the country and boasted about the benefits to people immigrating to the U.S.  What that has resulted in is a very diverse population that struggles to maintain a national identity at times. The fact that cultural differences exist does not mean that we should isolate ourselves from one another.  At the end of the day, we are much more alike than we are different..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Well, since we've veered off into how we decide who is President...

What I do like about the electoral college is that it is consistent with giving every state an official say in who is elected President of our Republic of 50 states.

** Academic exercise alert **

If there were a good way to draw congressional districts in a nonpartisan, unbiased way, I wonder if this could work:

State popular vote: winner gets 2 EVs for the Senate representation.

The rest of the state's EVs are awarded by congressional district.

It wouldn't necessarily parallel that the winning HoR candidate's party would be the same as the party of the presidential candidate who carried the district. My district in 2020 was split (D for prez, R for HoR).

D.C., just leave it as is.

To deal with small states vs large states, we have the Senate.  Every state gets two senators, regardless of that state's population. (I realize that you know that.)

I honestly don't see the reasoning to make a President the only person not selected by the voters themselves. It seems like we are trying to scratch our back with our foot when we have two perfectly good hands we can use.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

To deal with small states vs large states, we have the Senate.  Every state gets two senators, regardless of that state's population. (I realize that you know that.)

I honestly don't see the reasoning to make a President the only person not selected by the voters themselves. It seems like we are trying to scratch our back with our foot when we have two perfectly good hands we can use.

They are selected by the voters...

by state.

We are a republic of (ostensibly) united states.

I know my suggestion splits the baby and will almost certainly never happen...it's what Maine and Nebraska do with one of their congressional districts, but amplified.

I just don't have a problem with the electoral college as a concept. Others do. We'll agree to disagree and go on our merry ways. 

If 2/3 of states want to change how it's done, a convention of states can be called and get to the business of amending the Constitution. That would actually be some history I'd like to see happen...talk about needing some popcorn. If the process gets changed that way, then our system has worked as intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It does feel that way at first glance, but I have lived in Chicago and in New Orleans.  I am from rural Georgia went to Auburn for undergrad.  If you compare someone living in an inner city housing project with someone living in a middle class neighborhood in Newnan, Georgia, they are very different.  However, large metro areas aren't just made up of poverty and crime.  They are also home to everyone from middle class families to affluent trust funders to college campuses.  That is part of the challenge with finding common ground among so many different interests.

The reason our economy soared after WWII are the same core reasons as to why China's economy has soared over the past 3 decades.  We had cheap labor that was trainable and the natural resources to support manufacturing.  We literally opened the doors to the country and boasted about the benefits to people immigrating to the U.S.  What that has resulted in is a very diverse population that struggles to maintain a national identity at times. The fact that cultural differences exist does not mean that we should isolate ourselves from one another.  At the end of the day, we are much more alike than we are different..

Actually my thoughts had nothing to do with different economic classes. My thoughts went initially to people I work with (same company, similar roles, educational levels etc - just completely different political opinions, values and morals.  

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

To deal with small states vs large states, we have the Senate.  Every state gets two senators, regardless of that state's population. (I realize that you know that.)

I honestly don't see the reasoning to make a President the only person not selected by the voters themselves. It seems like we are trying to scratch our back with our foot when we have two perfectly good hands we can use.

So the small / rural states should just resign themselves to  having input at the Senate and whatever President is given to them?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

 

This is telling.

Sadly, much of Russia's disinformation has created a situation in which the hearings are almost meaningless.  34% of Americans will not believe what they saw or, refuse to allow themselves to recognize the true significance of what they saw.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone not taking the testimony of witnesses testifying at the hearings seriously, should stop pretending.

1. Stop pretending that you are a conservative.

2. Stop pretending that you are an originalist, someone who supports an approach of strict construction when interpreting the constitution or anything along those lines.  If you were, you would be greatly offended at the efforts undertaken to subvert the constitution by the Executive branch of government.

3. Stop pretending that these hearings aren't important or that they are a show being conducted by Democrats for political purposes.  The most damning witnesses have been Republican state elected officials that were pressured to illegally change the results of elections in their states.

4. Stop pretending that anyone in the history of this country has acted in such a brazen way after losing an election.  If you substitute the name Trump with Obama or Clinton, you would be outraged.  You would be demanding that they be locked up for having dared to place themselves above the people of the United States of America.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Anyone not taking the testimony of witnesses testifying at the hearings seriously, should stop pretending.

1. Stop pretending that you are a conservative.

2. Stop pretending that you are an originalist, someone who supports an approach of strict construction when interpreting the constitution or anything along those lines.  If you were, you would be greatly offended at the efforts undertaken to subvert the constitution by the Executive branch of government.

3. Stop pretending that these hearings aren't important or that they are a show being conducted by Democrats for political purposes.  The most damning witnesses have been Republican state elected officials that were pressured to illegally change the results of elections in their states.

4. Stop pretending that anyone in the history of this country has acted in such a brazen way after losing an election.  If you substitute the name Trump with Obama or Clinton, you would be outraged.  You would be demanding that they be locked up for having dared to place themselves above the people of the United States of America.

They cannot.  They will not.  They are hopelessly detached from reality. 

My wish is for them to stop pretending to be Christians, patriots.  They hijack the symbols.  They know nothing of the principles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

They cannot.  They will not.  They are hopelessly detached from reality. 

My wish is for them to stop pretending to be Christians, patriots.  They hijack the symbols.  They know nothing of the principles.

Thus, cultists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 10:43 PM, GoAU said:

So the small / rural states should just resign themselves to  having input at the Senate and whatever President is given to them?   

 

Yes. Have the popular vote actually matter in Presidential elections. If these small, rural States support a party that doesn't have broad national appeal or popular policies then that's not everyone else's problem.

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Yes. Have the popular vote actually matter in Presidential elections. If these small, rural States support a party that doesn't have broad national appeal or popular policies then that's not everyone else's problem.

 

Elitist status confirmed.

Be sure you get enough oxygen while you're riding that horse...it's in some pretty thin air.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SLAG-91 said:

Elitist status confirmed.

Be sure you get enough oxygen while you're riding that horse...it's in some pretty thin air.

If believing that the Republican Party should have to earn it's governmental power through popular support and good policy is "elitist" then sure...I guess I'm elitist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 3:10 PM, autigeremt said:

In the Republic system, laws are made by the elected representatives of the people. In a democracy, the will of the majority has the right to override the existing rights. In the Republic system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden since the constitution will protect those rights.

I'll take a Republic any day. 

Yes we are a Republic, but we are also a representative Democracy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

If believing that the Republican Party should have to earn it's governmental power through popular support and good policy is "elitist" then sure...I guess I'm elitist. 

Agreed. The Republican president has won the popular vote only once in past 8 presidential elections. We talk about the tyranny of the majority while conveniently ignoring we've been under essentially the tyranny of the minority for a while. It's just heightened especially during the social media age. If the Electoral College is the only way republicans can lose the popular vote while winning the election, then there's something very wrong with the democratic process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The popular vote is  already accounted for in presidential elections by the insane number of electoral votes states like California have.  
 

So typical of liberals to keep changing to rules until they get their way.  I assume you also support packing the courts and granting senators from Puerto Rico and DC as well?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The popular vote is  already accounted for in presidential elections by the insane number of electoral votes states like California have.  
 

So typical of liberals to keep changing to rules until they get their way.  I assume you also support packing the courts and granting senators from Puerto Rico and DC as well?

 

 

This is incorrect. 

California has 55 Electoral Votes, but if you're talking about proportional numbers based on population and the electoral votes, Wyoming has more power than California, believe it or not. Voters in Wyoming has 3.18 as much power as an average American. California has .94 (not even one) as an average American. There is an interactive map in how some states had more power (despite less Electoral Votes) as viewed here. As you can see, red states generally have more advantages using this system, so therefore the Republican presidential candidate can focus on swing states as their election strategy, and that'll be enough to win despite losing the popular vote. 

This is because of the law (Reapportionment Act of 1929) that capped the current total electoral votes to 435 in 1929. LINK if interested in reading. So, states like California or New York will continue to grow in terms of population size but the EVs will be capped. I'd argue changing the EVs to reflect the current population size for each state would be the most fairest way to tackle Electoral College as I'm perfectly aware of your preference to keep the election process as it is.

Knowing the law won't be changed anytime soon, I'm a big proponent of implementing Ranked Choice Voting, as it's probably the healthiest compromise of an average voter to get their voice heard.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

Why did these Congresspeople seek out a pardon? This could mean one thing -- they knew they were committing a crime

 

 

No, it was because they didn’t trust the Dems to do the right thing.

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

 

Why did these Congresspeople seek out a pardon? This could mean one thing -- they knew they were committing a crime. 

 

It could also mean that they were afraid of being brought in under false charges for a political dog and pony show in which even if you are innocent you still lose. 

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...