Hilary kicked the Rs asses,quit insulting her
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Where's the evidence? Claims without something to back it up are claims not proof.
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
AWWW Poor widdle Evince, the hyperpartisan twat, got her widdle fee fees hurt because the lying hag didn't win.
evince
Truthmatters
want me to go get the definition for you brain dead fuck licks
What you call gobbledy goop is already written down in Article II of the Constitution.
If you have the guts, try to shove it yourself, cunt. I doubt you will try.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and had often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and had often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
evince
Truthmatters
In the United States[edit]
"Consent of the governed" is a phrase found in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and Rational-legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):[4]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And in the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below, founding father George Mason wrote:
That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."[5]
Although the Continental Congress at the outset of the American Revolution had no explicit legal authority to govern,[6] it was delegated by the states with all the functions of a national government, such as appointing ambassadors, signing treaties, raising armies, appointing generals, obtaining loans from Europe, issuing paper money (called "Continentals"), and disbursing funds. The Congress had no authority to levy taxes, and was required to request money, supplies, and troops from the states to support the war effort. Individual states frequently ignored these requests. According to the Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899, commenting on the source of the Congress' power:
The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies. But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will. The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress...
"Consent of the governed" is a phrase found in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and Rational-legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):[4]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And in the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below, founding father George Mason wrote:
That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."[5]
Although the Continental Congress at the outset of the American Revolution had no explicit legal authority to govern,[6] it was delegated by the states with all the functions of a national government, such as appointing ambassadors, signing treaties, raising armies, appointing generals, obtaining loans from Europe, issuing paper money (called "Continentals"), and disbursing funds. The Congress had no authority to levy taxes, and was required to request money, supplies, and troops from the states to support the war effort. Individual states frequently ignored these requests. According to the Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899, commenting on the source of the Congress' power:
The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies. But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will. The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress...
evince
Truthmatters
in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Superfreak
Verified User
Moron, we are a democratic republic. The electoral college was done so that high population centers wouldn't have complete control over smaller states or more rural areas. Every state with the exception of NE and ME have a winner take all for their electoral votes.
Every single candidate who has run for President knows this. Other than complete morons, such as yourself, the populace knows this.
If you want to argue that you prefer an outright popular vote for the nation, that is your right to debate. But knowing the process that is currently in place and then bitching about it when you lose is beyond pathetic.
You might want to stop and consider the natural voter suppression in states like CA, NY, TX etc... where one party knows their party has little to no chance to win, so they don't vote. I'd be willing to bet the numbers are far greater on the Rep side in States like CA and NY than they are on the Dem side in states like TX.
If you aren't intelligent enough to see the peril of a popular vote... that is on you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
republicans own the house AND the senate, you have given your consent.[/QUOTE]
Superfreak
Verified User
56% to 44%... thats pretty much an ass kicking. Just because many others were by wider margins doesn't change the fact that Hillary got smoked by an idiot... AGAIN
Superfreak
Verified User
You are WRONG. That is a FACT.
You stated Hillary got hurt by gerrymandering. Were you LYING or just an IDIOT?
Superfreak
Verified User
LMAO... how did they do that?
Historically, a marginal win, stupid fuck. Decided by about 78,000 votes in three states. Pathetic ass-kicking, shitweasel. The popular mandate was, and still is, that people think Trump is a piece of shit.
I will agree with you that Hillary did get beat by an idiot.
Superfreak
Verified User
Again moron. when you win by 12% that is an ass kicking. Cherry picking the closeness of three states is irrelevant.
Keep crying about your candidate getting ass kicked by a clown.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
remember this, desh......Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes.......he won my county by 12,000 votes.......you are welcome......
Superfreak
Verified User
Desh still scared to address her completely ignorant comment.
Tell us Desh... how did Gerrymandering hurt Hillary?
Tell us Desh... how did Gerrymandering hurt Hillary?
Sorry, you fucking idiot, you can twist it any way you wish, but those 78,000 votes and the 12th closest victory in history, coupled with a 3 million actual vote loss is not REMOTELY close to an ass-kicking.
An ass-kicking is me continuously demonstrating what massive dumbfucks you snd your RW Trumplickers are.
The electoral college works today exactly as it did when G. Washington was elected.