Do you think many on the right even understand what the Founding Fathers did?

[Into the Night]

Yes it has, I literally just showed how it has changed for you in the 230+ years since the Constitution.

You don't shit in a hole you dug in the ground anymore, do you?

You don't cross long distances by horse and buggy, do you?

You don't use leeches as health care, do you?

You don't use the rain to bathe, do you?

You don't use carrier pigeons to take messages to people, do you?

So since you live your life according to a 21st century standard, why do you want 18th century governance?

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

The only fallacy here is yours...

You live your personal life according to a 21st century standard, yet you want to apply an 18th century standard to governance.

That's the fallacy at the heart of your argument that you haven't solved for, you've just tried to dismiss because of how detrimental it is to you argument.

So instead of defending your compulsion to apply an 18th century standard to 21st century society, you seek to dismiss it.

You can't defend it and you realized that pointing out the fallacy at the heart of your case completely undermines all of it.

Denial of logic. The fallacies he listed as you committing (YOU committed them!) is accurate.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jarod,

They love these lies. Cant get enough.

Facts and real information are so dull, so not supportive of their narrative.

Making up their own 'news' and 'history' plays into their fantasy so much better!

They wouldn't know what tyranny was if it crushed their lives.

They think the main stream media presenting the actual news is 'tyranny.'

 

[martin]

The 17th ruined the Senate. State legislatures or governors picked the senators to represent THE STATE, not the people (that's the function of the House), nor the nation (President). By going to a direct popular vote for senators, the Senate is now a carbon copy of the House only with longer terms in office.

Ask Joe Manchin if Senators no longer represent their states. They still do of course, as Manchin has been demonstrating. The difference between now and then is the sectional differences in the country which were once acute no longer are so there are fewer occasions like the one involving West Virginia and none that compare with the divisions between slave and free states or Western and Eastern states during the expansion periods.

 

[Matt Dillon]

In all fairness do you think anyone on the left has a clue what the Constitution says? Or means?....

If they do, they loathe it.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You mean protecting slaveholders, because that's what the purpose of the EC was.

Tiny political minorities should not have veto power over the government, and nowhere in the Constitution does it give the political minority that power.

You FAIL!

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'm not denying the electoral college.....I am denying the legality of the election in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where the state government violated the constitution by changing the election laws from those set by the state legislatures.....

Of course. It was all illegal. All of those states have (R) legislatures. Two have (D) governors, one does not. Are you saying that even so they passed laws to cheat your #MalignantMessiah out of the WH?

Try harder. It's not working.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ask Joe Manchin if Senators no longer represent their states. They still do of course, as Manchin has been demonstrating. The difference between now and then is the sectional differences in the country which were once acute no longer are so there are fewer occasions like the one involving West Virginia and none that compare with the divisions between slave and free states or Western and Eastern states during the expansion periods.

spoken like someone who doesn't want to understand how representative democracies are supposed to work

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ask Joe Manchin if Senators no longer represent their states. They still do of course, as Manchin has been demonstrating. The difference between now and then is the sectional differences in the country which were once acute no longer are so there are fewer occasions like the one involving West Virginia and none that compare with the divisions between slave and free states or Western and Eastern states during the expansion periods.

Not the point. Right now, the Senate sans the 17th Amendment would be about 54 to 56 Republicans to Democrats based on who controls state governorships and legislatures. It could reverse based on elections over time. You're focused only on the immediate present. That wasn't how the Senate was supposed to be. The House, yes, but not the Senate. It is how things are because the Senate has turned into a second House.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course. It was all illegal. All of those states have (R) legislatures. Two have (D) governors, one does not. Are you saying that even so they passed laws to cheat your #MalignantMessiah out of the WH?

Try harder. It's not working.

all three had Ds who changed voting laws put in place by the Rs in the state legislature in violation of the US constitution.......a total of 75,000 votes in those three states put O'biden in the Offal Office........he's not working....try harder.......

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Nobody can figure out what the founders did.

I wonder what the popular drugs were at the time.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nobody can figure out what the founders did.

it's actually pretty easy, if one knows how to read and comprehend..........that puts most liberals out of the group

 

[martin]

Not the point. Right now, the Senate sans the 17th Amendment would be about 54 to 56 Republicans to Democrats based on who controls state governorships and legislatures. It could reverse based on elections over time. You're focused only on the immediate present. That wasn't how the Senate was supposed to be. The House, yes, but not the Senate. It is how things are because the Senate has turned into a second House.

In other words, the Senate is a creature of party politics. Not the Founders intention and couldn't have been since party politics were a thing of the future in 1787. The real point is Senators know where their bread is buttered and it's strictly with the voters in their states.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In other words, the Senate is a creature of party politics. Not the Founders intention and couldn't have been since party politics were a thing of the future in 1787. The real point is Senators know where their bread is buttered and it's strictly with the voters in their states.

No, the real point is that those people who are in Congress now are the worst useless treasonous fucks in Congress we have ever seen, bar none.

Buckle Up Fuckers!

 

[LV426]

Because as the constitution puts it, what isn't specifically spelled out as a federal function in it is reserved to the states, or the people.

But education falls under general welfare, so what else ya got?

 

[Jarod]

Hello Jarod,



Facts and real information are so dull, so not supportive of their narrative.

Making up their own 'news' and 'history' plays into their fantasy so much better!

They wouldn't know what tyranny was if it crushed their lives.

They think the main stream media presenting the actual news is 'tyranny.'

Ive seen people live their entire lives not forced to face any real facts, it is not a life well lived, sad.

 

[LV426]

There isn't a goddamned thing in the constitution about the feds running education.

The feds don't run education now, but even if they did, what is the reason they shouldn't?

"Because the Constitution" isn't a valid reason due to the General Welfare clause.

You are incoherent.

 

[LV426]

If different states approach education differently, that's fine.

Expand on the "different approach". What does that mean? Because it's very vague and ambiguous...I think that is intentional on your part to be as vague and ambiguous as possible so that you can wiggle around the parameters of your argument.

 

[LV426]

If you or anybody else doesn't like how your state does it, move to one that does do it the way you like or get your state to change its system.

Well, simply moving is easier said than done, and the Constitution does grant Congress the power to legislate for the General Welfare of the US, of which education is inarguably a part.

So what is the argument FOR ceding ambiguous "education" to the states?

As I asked before, do kids in Minnesota learn a different kind of calculus than kids in Mississippi? And if so, what is the difference?

 

[LV426]

The nine justices on the bench, just like always.

Of which there is a 6-3 partisan bent.

So you're arguing that SCOTUS is non-partisan, but it clearly is partisan since 4 of the 6 Conservative justices were nominated by a Conservative who lost the popular vote, and 5 of the 6 Conservative justices were approved by Senators that represent less than half the population of the country.