A different Supreme Court.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

sorry tardo - you lost in the first post when you foolishly pretended to win something that isn't a competition

I guess you should tell every dictionary since Samuel Johnson that they are defining "win" incorrectly if you think it can only be used as the result of a competition.

 

[zymurgy]

I guess you should tell every dictionary since Samuel Johnson that they are defining "win" incorrectly if you think it can only be used as the result of a competition.

poor poor shit stain - the word was used in context as a competition over the number of total votes.

you seem to like losing competitions though tardo. you sided with a real loser here.

 

[Into the Night]

While it can seem we're a nation almost evenly divided, the reality is that the people pretty consistently prefer the Democrats.

You don't get to speak for most the people or all the people. You only get to speak for yourself. Omniscience fallacy.

The Republicans have only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in the last three decades....

The President is not elected by popular vote. See Article II of the Constitution of the United States.

and that was a very narrow one despite the lingering jingoism following 9/11. In every other election from 1992 onward, the people at least tried to choose the Democrat.

The President is not elected by popular vote.

So, it's worth thinking about how the court could look today if the democratic process had actually worked democratically.

The United States is not and never was a democracy. It was organized as a federated republic.

We'd still have Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, of course. But Kavanaugh and Barrett were installed by a guy the people didn't want to have that power. Instead, we'd have two Clinton justices in those roles, to go along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And, then there's Gorsuch, who only has his job because the Republicans effectively stole a slot from Obama, by forcing a vacancy until they could get the presidency back.

You can't 'steal a slot'.

So, we could well have a 5-4 or even 6-3 Democratic edge in the high court today, doing things like striking down efforts by conservatives to make our elections even less democratic, by way of intensified gerrymandering and voter-ID hurdles. Instead, we have a court dominated by conservatives, setting the stage for a time when it will matter less and less what the people want.

Legislating from the Bench is unconstitutional, dude.

Like other liberals, you cast aside and discard the Constitution of the United States, then try to hide behind it. Hiding behind the document you cast aside is a paradox, dude. It's irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

States are areas of land. Areas of land do not vote.
The people in the states vote...the humans above the age of 18.

Not quite right. States are the people that make up the State over an area. You kinda have the right idea tho.

That would make THE PEOPLE the final arbiter...and THE PEOPLE should be the final arbiter. THE PEOPLE should be the ones who decide what the laws are and what they are not.

The people ARE the final arbiter on the type government they shall have. That type of government is a federated republic. It has constitutions. That is discarded and ignored by you.

Jesus H. Christ. What is so hard to understand about that?

The United States is NOT a democracy. It never was. It was organized as a federated republic. Democracies have no constitutions and no representatives. YOU seem to have a hard time with the concept of what a constitution is and what it does.

 

[Into the Night]

LAND cannot be dominant. PEOPLE must be dominant in a democracy.

The United States is not a democracy and never was. It was organized as a federated republic.

Why should people who live in lightly populated areas have so much power over people who live in high populated areas?

RQAA. You have already asked this question and it has already been answered. Stop repeating yourself mindlessly.

They do right now...that is the way our country works.
BUT IT IS WRONG!

Why? Let's see your reasoning behind your opinion.

 

[Into the Night]

Horse shit. The reason for the rules that create the gross unfairness...was so that slave owners could continue to own human beings as chattels.

Pivot fallacy. Why are you attempting to bring the practice of slavery (defended by Democrats) into this???

If it were a straight majority rule vote...THINGS WOULD BE MORE FAIR.

Why should the city of Los Angeles have any say over the people in the State of Wyoming? I've always found it hilarious when city people visit a real farm. They have no clue.

That is what people like you want to avoid.

Since you want to discard the Constitution of the United States, why are you living here???

 

[Mina]

You don't get to speak for most the people or all the people.

I went on to explain what I meant and what the evidence for it is (e.g., the Democratic dominance when it comes to popular vote nationally).

The President is not elected by popular vote.

Nobody suggested he was. Consider reading more carefully, so that you don't waste other people's time responding to your misunderstandings in the future.

The President is not elected by popular vote.

You're repeating yourself. See above.

The United States is not and never was a democracy. It was organized as a federated republic.

Try to focus on the point at hand.

You can't 'steal a slot'.

If it hurts your feelings to hear it described that way, that's fine. We can go with the more long-winded description and say they took a step, unprecedented in American history, of refusing to bring a confirmation to a vote for the better part of a year, for the clear purpose of making sure that the president could not fill a vacancy, so that if they won the presidency they could fill it, instead.

Legislating from the Bench is unconstitutional, dude.

Yet that is effectively what they did.

Like other liberals, you cast aside and discard the Constitution of the United States

Like other right-wingers, you imagine that those who disagree with you about the Constitution are casting it aside.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not saying that.

Uh...you ARE saying that.

However, it's worth remembering that the senate isn't exactly democratic, either.

It isn't. The United States was never a democracy. Each State gets two Senators. The purpose of the Senate is to represent States...or at least it was until the 17th amendment, which in my opinion should be repealed.

During much of that era of Republican dominance, the Democratic (and Democrat-aligned independent) candidates had actually gotten more votes than the Republican candidates.

Irrelevant.

Like take the three senate elections leading up to 2018 (at which point the Republicans still held the majority).
Over the course of those six years, when every seat in the Senate was decided, Dems and their allies got 125,461,013 million votes, and Republicans got 98,787,228.

Irrelevant. False equivalence fallacy.

If seats were decided democratically,

The United States is not a democracy. Seats in the Senate are decided by the process outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

in a way that resulted in the parties getting them in proportion to their actual public support, we'd have had a senate, in 2018, with 56 seats in the hands of Dems and Dem-aligned independents.

Whataboutism.

Instead, the Republicans had a 51-vote majority.

So?

Because our system effectively considers small-state people superior to large-state people

No. It considers both States equal. See the Constitution of the United States. Equal is not 'superior'.

(in terms of giving them disproportionate voting share),

There isn't any.

the GOP can get away with appealing to a minority of people while still winning the senate --

The Senate is not elected by a national popular vote. See the Constitution of the United States.

the same way Gerrymandering makes possible for them in the House (and in state legislatures).

The House is not elected by a national popular vote. See the Constitution of the United States.

And, of course, the unfairness of the Senate also gets replicated in presidential selection, since the formula for electors factors in two electors per senator, giving small-state residents extra voting power there, as well.

Fewer electoral votes is not greater electoral votes.

This all combines to give the American people an up-hill climb to make their will matter.

No, it doesn't. The people put in place a constitutions, including the Constitution of the United States, which you discard and ignore.

It's not enough for them to reject the Republicans, as they pretty consistently do.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

They need to reject them by a substantial margin, to overcome the gerrymandering and the disproportionate power of small-state voters (who are more likely to be white and undereducated, and thus to vote Republican).

Bigotry. Racism.

 

[Into the Night]

When someone recounts verifiable facts that your media handlers sheltered you from, that can come across as a delusion.

Learn what 'fact' means, dude. It does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.

Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet, as you know, you didn't. Your comment is a bit like saying that the Bengals won the Super Bowl if you ignore the fourth quarter, and that we should ignore that quarter because otherwise it overrides the other three quarters.

Yes, if you cherry pick the results by excluding one or more states you wish didn't exist, you can come up with different popular vote totals. Like how would you respond if someone argued that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2004, if you disregard Texas? Presumably, you'd just kind of snicker at such an imbecile for imagining he'd made a point.

The President is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Mina]

Learn what 'fact' means, dude.

I know very well.... and your ultra-delicate emotions can't change the facts, no matter how many times you babble the word "fallacy" and imagine you've made some sort of point.

 

[Mina]

Uh...you ARE saying that.

Incorrect. Reread.

The United States was never a democracy.

A straw man attack like that is bad enough the first time, but it gets funnier and funnier each time you deploy it. Try to find where I said "the United States was a democracy."

Irrelevant.

Quite relevant. Try thinking about it.

Irrelevant. False equivalence fallacy.

Incorrect.

The United States is not a democracy

Redundant strawman.

Whataboutism.

Incorrect.

So?

So, that makes my point about how, even in the face of significantly more votes going to the Dems, the Republicans got the majority of the seats.

No. It considers both States equal. See the Constitution of the United States. Equal is not 'superior'.

I'm not referring to the states. I'm referring to the individuals.

There isn't any.

There is.

The Senate is not elected by a national popular vote

Nobody said it was. Strawman attack.

The House is not elected by a national popular vote.

Nobody said it was. Strawman attack.

Fewer electoral votes is not greater electoral votes.

Nobody said otherwise. Strawman attack.

No, it doesn't. The people put in place a constitutions, including the Constitution of the United States, which you discard and ignore.

I do not.

You don't get to speak for everyone.

I didn't. Strawman attack.

Bigotry. Racism.

It was neither. Try rereading. Good luck.

 

[Mina]

The President is not elected by popular vote.

I didn't say he was. Strawman. I've never encountered anyone who uses debating fallacies quite as consistently as you. Every other thing you write is a strawman attack. Have you ever considered actually taking some sort of class in rhetoric, so you're better at recognizing fallacies and can avoid falling into them over and over?

 

[Into the Night]

In French presidential elections the two candidates with the largest share of the POPULAR VOTE in the first round go forward to the second-round runoff. Then whoever gets a majority of the POPULAR VOTE wins the presidency.

The United States is not France.

Do French people worry about Paris and a few other cities with an "unfair" share of the population dominating the election? No, they do not. They reason that they live in a democracy where what matters is how people vote, not where they live.

France is not a democracy. It is a part of a federated oligarchy.

 

[Into the Night]

I know very well.... and your ultra-delicate emotions can't change the facts, no matter how many times you babble the word "fallacy" and imagine you've made some sort of point.

You obviously don't. You are attempting to use 'fact' to mean 'Universal Truth'. Redefinition fallacy.

These fallacies are YOURS dude. YOU are the one making them. Only YOU can correct this.

 

[Into the Night]

Incorrect. Reread.
A straw man attack like that is bad enough the first time, but it gets funnier and funnier each time you deploy it. Try to find where I said "the United States was a democracy."
Quite relevant. Try thinking about it.
Incorrect.
Redundant strawman.
Incorrect.
So, that makes my point about how, even in the face of significantly more votes going to the Dems, the Republicans got the majority of the seats.
I'm not referring to the states. I'm referring to the individuals.
There is.
Nobody said it was. Strawman attack.
Nobody said it was. Strawman attack.
Nobody said otherwise. Strawman attack.
I do not.
I didn't. Strawman attack.
It was neither. Try rereading. Good luck.

Your lying about what you said is simply denying your own arguments. Fallacy fallacies.
You cannot change the fact that the United States was organized as a federated republic. It was never a democracy. Your discard of the Constitution of the United States does not change that.

 

[zymurgy]

I didn't say he was. Strawman. I've never encountered anyone who uses debating fallacies quite as consistently as you. Every other thing you write is a strawman attack. Have you ever considered actually taking some sort of class in rhetoric, so you're better at recognizing fallacies and can avoid falling into them over and over?

you said the popular vote is something that can be won. what is the prize exactly for winning this?

 

[Mina]

you said the popular vote is something that can be won. what is the prize exactly for winning this?

Popular vote can be won. It demonstrates the will of the voters, whether or not the voting system rewards that.

 

[zymurgy]

Popular vote can be won. It demonstrates the will of the voters, whether or not the voting system rewards that.

what is won? what prize incentivizes people to compete?

 

[Mina]

You obviously don't. You are attempting to use 'fact' to mean 'Universal Truth'.

I didn't. You brought up "universal truth," not me. This is another strawman attack. You can't make it through a
single post without a glaring fallacy. I'd definitely urge you to read up on rhetoric, so you can better recognize fallacies before you fall into them. Good luck.