Colo Supremes: Insurrectionist Trump doesn’t belong in our primary

These men were so smart, and had so much wisdom.  And to think today we have people that think their mode of thinking is now outdated.  Just pure dumb rhetoric by the people today.  Values and Principles "" Never"   change. 

To have been on a fly on the wall , and listen to either of the Continental Congress sessions in the  1770s, or the Constitutional Convention later on.  Just pure brilliance all around... 

@Raiders22

I asked you a question which I didnt think you would answer and I know you cannot answer. What current day purpose does a weighted territorial EC serve in our current time, today and the last 50 years?

What overriding merit does the EC accomplish that is not partisan and has greater value that the vote of the people? Why does the EC serve a higher value purpose for the election of the president when it is not used for any other purpose including supreme court justices?

How does the EC serve the country in an equitable, balanced and representative way which makes its value greater than a common vote?

I would have a different opinion if this was the scenario...common vote is one party, the EC is another and in that scenario there is a third and final step which is the most pure and equitable that makes the decision. I have no idea what that would be, but it would not be decided by politicians or partisan sources, not by any means that money or power could corrupt but some potentially equal and even decision making step. I dont have the answer because in reality I think the common vote is the only proper option. I would never consider the EC as equitable, fair, balanced and proper because it isnt. If the EC can overturn a lopsided popular vote as we saw in two elections, then it is NOT balanced, it is not equitable it is not accurate or correct. 

So in your own words, not some copy paste from a GOP website, answer that question for me.

Oh and on the Trump is your guy replies I make, its really due to the way you generalize me, you treat me as a Biden supporter a DNC voter and have implied that so many times. So you are a GOP dood, Trump is your guy right? 

@Rush51

 EC is not about values and principal it was about equitable representation. When it was made the coasts had a massive population dispersion and is where a majority of industry was. There is nothing valuable about holding on to an archaic concept which is no longer valid. There is no merit holding onto old rules which had specific defined purposes and meaning and when that meaning and purpose are no longer valid that it is not serving the intended purpose. There are many screw ball very old school dated lines in original documents on a federal and state level which might have held value at certain times and those times have changed or expired. The EC has no greater good purpose with the country as populated and business/industry broadly diverse. Ohio or PA or Wisc or Fla does not need coddling or protection from NY or Calif or any coastal areas, that serves absolutely no purpose for equity and fairness in our current country dynamics. I am sure you love this back door scheme because it serves your purpose but if your dood got stung you would not feel the same.

@wallstreetcappers

 I asked you a question which I didnt think you would answer and I know you cannot answer. What current day purpose does a weighted territorial EC serve in our current time, today and the last 50 years?

Yes, I answered it.  It is the same things as always.  The state's sovereignty plays a part in this.  Simply look at the Articles of Confederation.  This is the basis of how the country was set up.

Simply look at the latest issue when the Supreme Court sent the abortion issue back to the states. 

There are many issues like this that some states would like to control themselves.  There is also the concern about being potentially overwhelmed on issue that certain directly to their states other individuals.

The country was not founded as one state but as a Union of individual States.  So, whenever an issue comes up that a small state or states is concerned about then it is very much to their benefit to have some recourse in the matter.  The Electoral College is just one of these methods that the Founders put in place to prevent this.

Pick one that is close to where you are right now -- the illegal situation.  Imagine if every state except the border states voted one way and it was against the border state's interest.

You can imagine all sorts of scenarios.  But right now the main one is that the country's President is not solely determined by large states with big cities every single time.  That almost 'forces' a sort of concession to smaller states and minority folk's concerns.

Imagine if the states with the most amount of a race decided on policy to benefit their states at the detriment to states that have more minority races, etc.

You can also imagine a scenario where trade is adversely affected on smaller states -- or even national security.

This is a very easy question to answer -- either as an overview like I did before, or in detail.

The bottom line is that folks want the country to be like a European country and that is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid.

And this is the type of nonsense,   stupid comments I expect from the left.

Read what I said again, .... Values and Principles "" Never "" Change.  Of course technology "" Does Change"", which explains why we don't use muskets,  horse & buggy, and a bunch of other things. 

Progress "" Does Not"" mean changing our foundation and guiding principles. 

Understand the difference !! 

@wallstreetcappers

 It is used as a variety of the checks and balances.  The presidential election is done this way.  Other elections are not.  Separate houses in Congress are for different purposes and serve differently.  The Supreme Court is done differently as well.  

It was intentionally set up not to be a majority rule on everything.

You have some states now that have adopted various ways of electing now in use of how their electors vote, etc.  But by and large it has worked effectively.

There has only been one candidate who lost a presidential election despite receiving a majority -- not just a plurality -- of the popular vote.

So, for the most part the election process is working somewhat better than just a popular vote would.  Now, the candidates at least have to try to convince folks in the smaller states to vote for them.

@Rush51 

These men were so smart, and had so much wisdom.  And to think today we have people that think their mode of thinking is now outdated.  Just pure dumb rhetoric by the people today.  Values and Principles "" Never"   change. 

To have been on a fly on the wall , and listen to either of the Continental Congress sessions in the  1770s, or the Constitutional Convention later on.  Just pure brilliance all around... 

Imagine how ignorant and ill-informed most people are and they get the same vote as a well-educated and very informed person gets.

But that is not to say the 'smart' people always know better.  I am just saying most folks are very uneducated and are just followers and get all of their 'information' from Media and other uneducated and uninformed people.

The Founding Fathers understood all of this and tried their best to set up a government that would benefit all people and let all people have a say, without the government being overbearing.

They would be dismayed at what it has become today. 

@wallstreetcappers 

What overriding merit does the EC accomplish that is not partisan and has greater value that the vote of the people? Why does the EC serve a higher value purpose for the election of the president when it is not used for any other purpose including supreme court justices?

How does the EC serve the country in an equitable, balanced and representative way which makes its value greater than a common vote?

I would have a different opinion if this was the scenario...common vote is one party, the EC is another and in that scenario there is a third and final step which is the most pure and equitable that makes the decision. I have no idea what that would be, but it would not be decided by politicians or partisan sources, not by any means that money or power could corrupt but some potentially equal and even decision making step. I dont have the answer because in reality I think the common vote is the only proper option. I would never consider the EC as equitable, fair, balanced and proper because it isnt. If the EC can overturn a lopsided popular vote as we saw in two elections, then it is NOT balanced, it is not equitable it is not accurate or correct. 

This is the nationally elected one.  The states have their own choices.  If they wanted to have a version in each state like this to choose their representatives or governors -- they could do that.  But a state is much smaller and the demographics are not as varied.  You have extreme examples of say, Atlanta controlling how Georgia goes.  But as I pointed out to you in the earlier post -- go look at how vast the area and votes that Trump got over Clinton.  In that instance two very small groups of folks in a couple of sections of the country would have determined the election.  You have some manipulation inside the states to try to make it fair to the voters there for demographics.  But we know how each party tries to abuse that.

The Electoral College was not set up to be equitable -- so I am not sure why you would consider it that way.  That was clearly not the intent the way you would define it.

It was purposely designed and set up to do exactly what it does.

I am not saying that there are not points to do away with it.  But you have to keep in mind that once that happens it would never get back to where it is now.  Therefore, you are one step closer to a Democracy -- and I get that a lot of people want that.

I do not think it is as partisan as you think.  It is just that the Republicans much prefer a Republic and the Democrats want majority-rule and a pure Democracy.

Just different viewpoints --  I can see both sides; I just agree with one side and you agree with the other.

It does not matter whether it is my words again.  It is very educational to read other's opinions on this where they have sat down and studied and made a coherent argument for it or against it.

When you or I sit here and go back and forth it does not do anything but basically say what our opinions are.  

It is very weird to me when people refuse to read other's well-thought out articles for and against any issue.  This sort of thing can easily support your side with well thought out points instead of just simply opinion.  So, whether we articulate our points or not, there is nothing wrong with using supporting data or expert's points to back up your side.  Because when you are not an expert in a field it makes the argument weaker when you do not have anything but your opinion to back it up.

That goes back to my point of why the process is good also -- it prevents mob-rule when people are so ill-informed, but they can outvote people just because their opinion is what it is.

.

@wallstreetcappers

 Oh and on the Trump is your guy replies I make, its really due to the way you generalize me, you treat me as a Biden supporter a DNC voter and have implied that so many times. So you are a GOP dood, Trump is your guy right? 

Yes.  You are a Democrat and a Liberal.  I have told you that before and it is not a big deal to me.  You have never exhibited any Conservative ideas and I have never known you to support any Conservative candidates.  But that is fine, because that is what I prefer.  I have said on here many times I do not need a cheerleader to discuss politics with.  What is the point.  That is why I prefer to discuss with you.  We disagree on nearly everything in politics that is why I try to discuss with you.  Very few other Democrats on here try to discuss things.  I wish we had more Independents on here because that would make for better discussions -- but there just are not that many of them around anymore.

But on sports I agree with most of what you post -- that I why I rarely comment, unless it is just a good luck.  Or something specific about your team out there.

A lot of the folks I know and talk politics with I know I disagree with but they are very good discussions and I still learn from them.

I say Trump is your guy because you seem obsessed with the guy and try to bring him into every discussion.  For example, what did he have to do with Romney really.

You seemed to like Romney.  Did you vote for him?

I would not say I am GOP but more a Conservative.

No, I have said many times on here Trump was not my guy.  He was not even on my radar.  Maybe 4th or 5th choice at the time.

But he has been president and you know what you get with him.

I can say there are things he did that I did not like but I was very pleasantly surprised with him.

I can easily make the case that he was the best USA President in the last 50 years.

There are some good points with Vivek and DeSantis.  I have some issues with Haley.

But of that crowd I think Trump is your best guy.

Like I say you are voting for a President od oa good job -- not a friend to have dinner with on Sunday afternoons.

I know you cannot overlook his attitude and a lot of people cannot.  I get that.  But he is far better than Biden and I think people need to consider that.

But it is so disappointing that these are the best candidates.

Where are the good young up-an-coming guys and gals.  So sad that these are the best guys left.

@wallstreetcappers

 Speaking of your team there...

I need a big day out of your team and Murray today!  I need them to keep it close and maybe even pull out the win.

Flawed electoral college is one of the reasons why US has a failing democracy.  States with big populations are under represented in government while states with small populations are over represented.  As population increases, US becomes more undemocratic.  For example, 24 swing states may decide outcome of federal election in the past.  But now, perhaps 6 swing states determine outcome.  As a result, politicians just need to appeal to a small segment of population instead of as many voters as possible.  Tyranny by minority over majority.   Today, most surviving democratic countries are parliamentary with proportional representation that allow more than two political parties to gain seats in government.

wallstreet…….

Merry Christmas !

Fantastic post. 

Couldn't have said it any better myself !! All of it.    

@Raiders22

 I would not wager on Kyler in any fashion unless they were getting tons of points or he was extremely undervalued fantasy wise. I dont think he has the mental skills and motivation to be an NFL QB and especially a leader. This Cards team is not my team at all, but maybe this coach if he gets a few players in place could do good things but if they keep Kyler he will be gone in less than 3 years IMO.

I am not a liberal at all, but you generalize me that way because I vote for what is best for society and I practice in my own home what is best for me. That is a huge distinction and few including you understand that and practice it. I think my conservative views and nature are best served inside my family circle and there I can decide what I want to do and how I live my life, society is not conservative in the slightest, not even close to how I am or how I make choices. The responses you see from me here are how I feel society is best served, and that is how we need to vote. I cannot put support behind disgusting abusive people and I will never do that and in the case of two elections ago it meant I cast no vote...Clinton was disgusting, Trump was worse and I could not support either and down here a vote for someone other than non-party is throwing a penny into the ocean it means nothing, plus the indy candidates back they were bizarre and not at all representative of what society needs.

I share SOME of the religious beliefs to a much more moderate degree that SOME of the GOP candidates like say Romney represent but that is my personal family religious beliefs, not what I feel society wants or needs or should be force fed. Society does not need a corporatist, that is where Romney lost me, they do not need a failed corporatist who has no morals or little consideration for middle to lower class and that is Trump. When a candidate belittles and tries to elevate themselves by insulting others that loses my vote because it shows a total lack of character. Trump has no character, few redeeming values and he rigged his way in and had that opportunity and he did nothing with the most pristine economic conditions any president will ever have. No president had ZIRP as Trump did, no president had carte blanche to stealth run deficits as Trump did. I can go on as to what a cushy scenario he had but the point is he did nothing with it, made no attempt to reverse course on spending or make a big impact for the future. The shoddy wall crap he did was not impactful, giving freebies to corps on a tax holiday was not impactful, there was no move to solidify this country in an economically positive way. He ran his mouth, golfed a ton, kept is face in front of the media because that is what he values, attention and singular spotlight. 

None of the other candidates you listed have any better qualities, all are deranged and angry they follow the Trump scheme of debasing others to elevate themselves, there is nothing unique or unifying or spectacular about any GOP candidate, nothing that inspires or motivates its just a bunch of sewer level politicians. Biden is a zero he is terrible but I am not sure the DNC will bring something awesome to the party either, I guess we will see but I am not holding out great hope. 

To me I live and make choices that are suited to my beliefs and my foundation and I ignore all the crap out in society, but I support that which gives the most rights to the middle and lower class, that which does the most for those who have the least and I keep my conservative views to myself and vote accordingly.

@wallstreetcappers

  I would not wager on Kyler in any fashion unless they were getting tons of points or he was extremely undervalued fantasy wise. I dont think he has the mental skills and motivation to be an NFL QB and especially a leader. This Cards team is not my team at all, but maybe this coach if he gets a few players in place could do good things but if they keep Kyler he will be gone in less than 3 years IMO.

I usually agree. But hoping 4.5 is enough points today.  They are clearly better with him.  But I agree he is not a franchise guy.

I just know you live out there.  I always sort of rooted for whatever team was in whatever city I lived in at the time in addition to my teams.  So, I know you know them at least.

I get to the rest of the post later on.  

Trump did nothing they cry!

All previous presidents combined had a total of 244 filibusters used to stop them. Trump alone faced 314 filibusters from democrats, more than ALL PRESIDENT'S COMBINED. 

Washington Post; When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions.

Just the threat of a Democratic filibuster stopped Republicans from moving forward on a host of priorities, including entitlement reforms, immigration reforms, lawsuit reforms, health-care reforms, budget cuts, expanded gun rights and the defunding of Planned Parenthood. And Democrats have used the filibuster to force Republicans to reduce the scope of some of their biggest legislative achievements. Republicans could not make the Trump income tax cut permanent, because they had to use the arcane budget reconciliation process (which requires a simple majority vote, but limits what can be enacted) to avoid a Democratic filibuster.

@UNIMAN

 That politics bro...it happens all the time, it cant be that Trump gets a ticker tape party with no opposition in fact if you think that is what he needs then he is a weak useless politician. A good president can work with both sides to accomplish non-partisan goals and work across the aisle.

Trump is too busy insulting across the aisle to have any shot at working with anyone but the extremists who share his insulting abusive nature. You cannot expect to flame torch as a means of being elected then work with the other side to make progress.

A unifying, intelligent leader knows how to work with the other side even when the other side is strongly opposed to their position. Trump cannot work with anyone, even those in his party, his zero ego trowel mouthed persona means he has little to no shot at non-partisan efforts being successful.

@wallstreetcappers

 Just stop w your absolute hatred of Trump.  He "" did "" work with members of his party to pass the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act ( as an example).  That little piece of legislation that lowered taxes for individuals,  businesses, and "" narrowed"" the wealth inequality, ...  for you guys that like to pay attention to that sort of thing.  

Lots of good things came out of this that actually ended up helping  lower  and middle- class Americans , more than upper class... . This isn't hyperbole ; these are facts.  ( I can provide them again,  if interested).

* So, you must either acknowledge that the legislation was good for common folks, or come to grips w the fact that you caring for lower and middle  class America is not really a priority.  

@Rush51

 Lets not discuss the personal tax code fiasco, do you not remember how we trampled all over that when it happened? It was not good for the middle class, it wrecked deductions it raised the standard deduction to eliminate most all deductions and raised the tax brackets in the process. That was not an accomplishment, my taxes have been higher every single year since that Trump scam was passed, income is consistent, no change in aspects of life yet my tax liability went up and has stayed the same since that crap went through.

I would rather not rehash that mess, there is a small section that benefitted and a large section that did not, I hardly call that a success. If Trump REALLY wanted to help the middle class they would update the AMT phase-ins and push that to a more realistic income level especially for married filing joint. The phase in for AMT is starting to bite too close to that middle class level and the intention was not to impact the middle class.

It happens all the time, one party with 314 filibusters in four years.  Then after, they wanted to eliminate it.