1) If we think of "completely shameless" with regard to modern era presidents, that makes sense. As in, the Founders could imagine a Nixon (some shame), but not a Trump (no shame). But I'm thinking that plenty of kings looked basically every bit as bad as Trump (and worse), so shouldn't they have been able to imagine a Trump? 100% shameless? Let the peasants die (because it serves your purposes); pretend that a pandemic isn't happening (because it will make you look bad).
2) In Nixon's time, the president's party showed principle (not that long ago). What makes this time different? Three options jump to mind:
1) Something in the water. Nah.
2) A rather quick, I think, and very significant devolution of politics/culture? Seems too short a period for that, but perhaps.
3) Most likely? Trump did what Nixon could not/did not: Galvanize a critical mass of die-hard supporters that all party members would be afraid of. Today, AND back in Nixon's day. Is that "simply" it? If Nixon had Trump's mob, those senators wouldn't have been principled, either?
1) Bolded text seems disingenuous. The Primary purpose of the EC was to get the slave states and small states to sign on. Your notion that this was some sort of minor function in the creation of the EC system is absurd. It was THE purpose of the EC.
2) Federalist 68 basically shows that ONE person thought that one nice feature of the EC would be to help weed out any Trump-To-Be. That is a very different statement than saying that all (or the majority) of the framers of the Constitution thought that this feature was the (or one of the) primary drivers for the creation of the EC.
The EC was created to get the slave states and small states on board. It was not designed or implemented in order to keep future Trumps out.
What I’m saying is literally the topic sentence of this page explaining the original thinking about the EC:
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
No, it is not. The following two statements are NOT the same:
"The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."
and
"But the framers put in the electoral college as a last ditch way for responsible elders to reject a DJT character."
A lot of chaos in the early voting, I know. Let's bring it all into one post. Here's what I am seeing:
- Lagging Democratic enthusiasm and turnout - Higher Republican enthusiasm and turnout - Correspondingly, a rural surge - Lagging black turnout - A more white electorate
FEMA and a White House spokesperson both said the claim is false. It conflates the agency's disaster relief fund with a separate program that helps homeless people. The money provided by Congress for the disaster relief fund must be used for that purpose, and any other use is against the law.
Agip - I saw the effing video. Come on dude. I saw the effing video.
It's fvcking video. Not effing video. Fvcking video.
Under our Constitutional system of government, the Vice President is the SOLE arbiter of which electoral certificates are to be counted.
JUST IN: The Justice Department has sent a letter to Elon Musk's super PAC, warning that his daily $1m giveaway to registered voters in swing states might violate federal laws, sources tell CNN. It's illegal to incentivize registration with cash/prizes
The Dems instead prefer to use your tax dollars for campaign purposes under the guise of voter registration. In the past election, Dems used SBF’s dirty money to this end.
The Stanford professor argued that getting more Democrats registered to vote would be far more effective than simply donating to candidates, and encouraged donors to give 90% of their election cont…
President Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order directing executive branch departments and federal employees to use federal resources to get out the vote constitutes unlawful, potentially partisan interference in the election proc...
Surely a few of you MAG@s have 401ks and IRAs? The stock market is going to tank if Trump gets elected. We all know that. Most or all gains in 2024 will be wiped out. Are any of you planning for that? Thinking about voting with financial interests instead of with your obsessions?
Compare the market indexed to the inflation rate. Better under Trump. Also check the value of crypto. Crypto, private prison stocks, and similar ones are surging now because Trump is favored to win
You don't have a 401K or an IRA or anything similar. So this doesn't concern you or the other marginal boofers.
The stock market is going to tank if Trump gets elected. We ALL know that. Are the few MAG@s with any work accumulated wealth going to protect their assets? How? Move it all into crypto and private prison stocks?
JUST IN: The Justice Department has sent a letter to Elon Musk's super PAC, warning that his daily $1m giveaway to registered voters in swing states might violate federal laws, sources tell CNN. It's illegal to incentivize registration with cash/prizes
The Dems instead prefer to use your tax dollars for campaign purposes under the guise of voter registration. In the past election, Dems used SBF’s dirty money to this end.
The NPR article that you posted here a few pages back states that there’s no evidence for any partisan angling in the expanding of voter registration. No evidence of non-citizens being registered to vote.
I want the American citizen to be able to vote. I want every American citizen who supports Trump to be able to vote. I don’t want anyone to vote for Trump but I support any eligible voter’s right to vote for him. Can you say the same about Harris supporters?
I think a second Trump administration would be a virtual doom for the United States. But if that’s what the people want, that’s what the people get.
Get every American who is eligible registered to vote. That is a bedrock principle of America.
Surely a few of you MAG@s have 401ks and IRAs? The stock market is going to tank if Trump gets elected. We all know that. Most or all gains in 2024 will be wiped out. Are any of you planning for that? Thinking about voting with financial interests instead of with your obsessions?
You do know that Kamala has talked about taxing unrealized capital gains and raising capital gains taxes? Why would she do that? There is an inverse relationship between capital gains tax rates and total capital tax revenue collected. To punish investors?
Don't pretend you have enough money to be affected by that proposal.
You're a flat busted drunk that spends his days ranting on this forum until he passes out.
I'm sure we've all seen that brilliant explanation of why democracy works:
Democracy does not elevate our best people to be our leaders. That's not what it does and not why it works so well. We shouldn;t expect our best people to run for office, win elections and lead us.
Democracy works so well for one main reason: It lets us get rid of the bad leaders. That's it. It lets us shed the bad ones.
Which is a main reason why the "conservatives'" attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is so dangerous. Democracy won't work if one party refuses to accept losses in free and fair elections. And democracy wont' work if we can't get rid of the bad ones via the ballot box.
I agree with the poster who said Vance is the smartest of the entire bunch.
You do know that Kamala has talked about taxing unrealized capital gains and raising capital gains taxes? Why would she do that? There is an inverse relationship between capital gains tax rates and total capital tax revenue collected. To punish investors?
Don't pretend you have enough money to be affected by that proposal.
You're a flat busted drunk that spends his days ranting on this forum until he passes out.
A lot of MAG@s live on the margins. They have little work ethic and spend most of the day complaining about all the people that are out to get them. In your typical American workplace, the MAG@s are the low achievers. They're too distracted and impulsive to execute.
Don't pretend you have enough money to be affected by that proposal.
You're a flat busted drunk that spends his days ranting on this forum until he passes out.
A lot of MAG@s live on the margins. They have little work ethic and spend most of the day complaining about all the people that are out to get them. In your typical American workplace, the MAG@s are the low achievers. They're too distracted and impulsive to execute.
Bunga Diddle
They think Daddy Donald will rescue them from their miserable lives. He wont.
At a minimum Daddy Donald will make "others" miserable, that's good enough.
Compare the market indexed to the inflation rate. Better under Trump. Also check the value of crypto. Crypto, private prison stocks, and similar ones are surging now because Trump is favored to win
You don't have a 401K or an IRA or anything similar. So this doesn't concern you or the other marginal boofers.
The stock market is going to tank if Trump gets elected. We ALL know that. Are the few MAG@s with any work accumulated wealth going to protect their assets? How? Move it all into crypto and private prison stocks?
On tax policy, Harris carries forward much of President Biden’s FY 2025 budget, including higher taxes aimed at businesses and high earners. She would also further expand the child tax credit (CTC) and various other tax credi...
You don't have a 401K or an IRA or anything similar. So this doesn't concern you or the other marginal boofers.
The stock market is going to tank if Trump gets elected. We ALL know that. Are the few MAG@s with any work accumulated wealth going to protect their assets? How? Move it all into crypto and private prison stocks?
