Caravan

[bolverk 29661]

30 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You are fucking clueless. Germany is a federal republic as well. Why don't you go look up how their President and Chancellor are chosen. The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we are a republic. Nor does being a republic even require federalism. Most republics aren't federal.

Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

France and Ireland are also republics, but neither have a federal form of government.

[DDD Dad 14332]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

France and Ireland are also republics, but neither have a federal form of government.

has

[Chrispy 132]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/caravan-migrants-suffer-from-respiratory-infections-tuberculosis-chickenpox-other-health-issues-tijuana-government-says

Possible Hepatitis outbreak. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Chrispy

[bad_teammate 13194]

I think the distinction between rural and urban power centers is important to keep in mind. I also think the Constitution is a living document made by human men and that we should constantly analyze our nation's founding document in the light of modern situations. When necessary, we should amend that living document to ensure the fairest and most effective functioning government possible. Like we should with literally all things, we should constantly challenge and question every aspect of the Constitution.

If we take for granted that we need to protect the rural minority from the unchecked rule of the urban majority, what is a reasonable metric by which judge how much "extra" power the rural voter should get? Should a rural voter get 2x the electoral power of an urban voter? 3x? 30x? 100x?

How many representatives should a rural population expect per 500k citizens? 1? 2?

How many representatives should an urban population expect per 500k? 1? 0.5? 0.2?

Off-the-Top Proposal:
- Cap Congressional district population at 300k
- Electors determined by district-level presidential race winner
 

[Brisketexan 105095]

I love the Constitution.  Seriously, I do - I literally took an oath to support the Constitution, and I meant it.  Not because it is perfect.  But rather, because it has embedded in it an open admission of its imperfection, and thus the imperfection of our founding vision.

Understand that the gaping flaws in our Constitution led to things like a bloody civil war that killed more Americans than any other war, 200+ years of not granting black people the full rights and privileges of citizenship (from slavery to legal Jim Crow), etc.  Those are some BIG fucking negatives.  To argue that "well, it ain't perfect, but we'd be dumb to change it" is to ignore that its flaws can be THAT BAD.

Our electoral system is supposed to create balance.  And, it did, when all congressional districts and even states (and  thus Senate representation) were of similar size, or at least the ratio wasn't way out of kilter.  Again, a person in Wyoming has SIXTY EIGHT TIMES the voting power of a person in California when it comes to Senate representation.  That's way out of whack.  AND, the fact that this voting power translates to TWO branches of government (it also dictates significantly disparate power in the electoral college), and that's a problem.  The minority should have a real voice.  Maybe even an outsized voice.  But 68 times the voice of an American who happens to live in California?  That's how our nifty Constitution creates irreconcilable differences among the population.  It's done it before.  I don't like how it went.

[Dahobbs 17534]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I love the Constitution.  Seriously, I do - I literally took an oath to support the Constitution, and I meant it.  Not because it is perfect.  But rather, because it has embedded in it an open admission of its imperfection, and thus the imperfection of our founding vision.

Understand that the gaping flaws in our Constitution led to things like a bloody civil war that killed more Americans than any other war, 200+ years of not granting black people the full rights and privileges of citizenship (from slavery to legal Jim Crow), etc.  Those are some BIG fucking negatives.  To argue that "well, it ain't perfect, but we'd be dumb to change it" is to ignore that its flaws can be THAT BAD.

Our electoral system is supposed to create balance.  And, it did, when all congressional districts and even states (and  thus Senate representation) were of similar size, or at least the ratio wasn't way out of kilter.  Again, a person in Wyoming has SIXTY EIGHT TIMES the voting power of a person in California when it comes to Senate representation.  That's way out of whack.  AND, the fact that this voting power translates to TWO branches of government (it also dictates significantly disparate power in the electoral college), and that's a problem.  The minority should have a real voice.  Maybe even an outsized voice.  But 68 times the voice of an American who happens to live in California?  That's how our nifty Constitution creates irreconcilable differences among the population.  It's done it before.  I don't like how it went.

It also ignores that the Constitution has a mechanism to change it, and that mechanism has been utilized to make monumentally important and substantive changes. 

Direct popular election of the President, combined with the current Senate and House structure, seems to be a more reasonable balance. The minority still have a substantial lever in the Senate without completely displacing the majority.

[workswithseed 2102]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I think the distinction between rural and urban power centers is important to keep in mind. I also think the Constitution is a living document made by human men and that we should constantly analyze our nation's founding document in the light of modern situations. When necessary, we should amend that living document to ensure the fairest and most effective functioning government possible. Like we should with literally all things, we should constantly challenge and question every aspect of the Constitution.

If we take for granted that we need to protect the rural minority from the unchecked rule of the urban majority, what is a reasonable metric by which judge how much "extra" power the rural voter should get? Should a rural voter get 2x the electoral power of an urban voter? 3x? 30x? 100x?

How many representatives should a rural population expect per 500k citizens? 1? 2?

How many representatives should an urban population expect per 500k? 1? 0.5? 0.2?

Off-the-Top Proposal:
- Cap Congressional district population at 300k
- Electors determined by district-level presidential race winner
 

The scary thing about that, is free speech can be taken off the table or severely limited.

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

The scary thing about that, is free speech can be taken off the table or severely limited.

You mean the right secured in the 1st amendment?

[workswithseed 2102]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You mean the right secured in the 1st amendment?

yes, do you think it should be limited? 

[seven 1367]

Oh good grief dude

[workswithseed 2102]

3 minutes ago, seven said:

Oh good grief dude

What, it's a yes or no answer where you add context. Nothing to hard about that.

[seven 1367]

These city slickers is trying to take away my freedom of speech! - aggie dumbass

[workswithseed 2102]

4 minutes ago, seven said:

These city slickers is trying to take away my freedom of speech! - aggie dumbass

Yes or no? It isn't hard. If you aren't going to make an actual statement then why are you even responding at all?

[seven 1367]

It's a ridiculous question from the post you quoted.

I don't know bt's answer, he's weird enough that he might not support the first amendment, but I doubt it.

That you think a post about voting power between urban and rural areas has anything to do about free speech is very weird as well. 

[bad_teammate 13194]

25 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

yes, do you think it should be limited? 

Of course I think it should be limited, as do you and literally every other sane human on Earth. The difficulty is not in acknowledging that obvious reality, but having a real, in-depth discussion as to what limits should exist and why.

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

What, it's a yes or no answer where you add context. Nothing to hard about that.

His point was that the Bill of Rights were amendments to the constitution. But What he’s not mentioning is the author of the Bill of Rights was... James Madison, the father of the constitution. 

 

[workswithseed 2102]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Of course I think it should be limited, as do you and literally every other sane human on Earth. The difficulty is not in acknowledging that obvious reality, but having a real, in-depth discussion as to what limits should exist and why.

I don't think any speach should be limited. If someone wants to say my god isn't real and I am just worm food that's fine. 

Now I will say there is a difference from speech and a call to action.

[seven 1367]

So should we amend the constitution so that we can no longer amend the constitution or protect certain parts from being amended? What is your point? 

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I don't think any speach should be limited.

~*~ five seconds later ~*~

Quote

Now I will say there is a difference from speech and a call to action.

So you don't advocate the restriction of speech except the type of speech you think should be restricted.

A

BRAIN

THE

SIZE

OF

THE

GALAXY

[Brisketexan 105095]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't think any speach should be limited.

Cool.  Literally every Supreme Court Justice who has ever spoken on the issue sees it differently.  And also spells it differently.  There are numerous well-established exceptions to free speech.  Seriously, it's not something arcane, there's a full wikipedia segment on it.

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

3 minutes ago, seven said:

So should we amend the constitution so that we can no longer amend the constitution or protect certain parts from being amended? What is your point? 

we call it the "double stamp no-take-backs" amendment.

[workswithseed 2102]

Just now, seven said:

So should we amend the constitution so that we can no longer amend the constitution or protect certain parts from being amended? What is your point? 

I think that the first 10 are really great amendments and shouldn't be changed. I don't want soldiers in my house, or do away with due process.

 

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

~*~ five seconds later ~*~

So you don't advocate the restriction of speech except the type of speech you think should be restricted.

A

BRAIN

THE

SIZE

OF

THE

GALAXY

You can still yell fire, doesn't mean if you are Scot free if people die.

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, workswithseed said:

You can still yell fire, doesn't mean if you are Scot free if people die.

So you advocate the limitation of speech?

~*~ very workswithseedishly ~*~

"IT'S JUST A YES OR NO QUESTION OH MY GOD ANSWER IT ALREADY!"

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just now, workswithseed said:

I think that the first 10 are really great amendments and shouldn't be changed. I don't want soldiers in my house, or do away with due process.

 

You can still yell fire, doesn't mean if you are Scot free if people die.

Actually,  no....you CAN'T yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  Any more than you can murder someone, rob a bank, etc.  I mean, you physically CAN do those things -- people in fact do them.  But they are all ILLEGAL.  That's what the First Amendment is about.  Whether the government shall make a LAW impairing freedom of speech.

So, no.  You can't hell "fire."  You can't publish a false advertisement.  You can't publish speech that is copyrighted by another person.  Etc. etc.  LOTS of exceptions.

[workswithseed 2102]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually,  no....you CAN'T yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  Any more than you can murder someone, rob a bank, etc.  I mean, you physically CAN do those things -- people in fact do them.  But they are all ILLEGAL.  That's what the First Amendment is about.  Whether the government shall make a LAW impairing freedom of speech.

So, no.  You can't hell "fire."  You can't publish a false advertisement.  You can't publish speech that is copyrighted by another person.  Etc. etc.  LOTS of exceptions.

Yes you can if its on fire. That's why its a call to action.

[workswithseed 2102]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you advocate the limitation of speech?

~*~ very workswithseedishly ~*~

"IT'S JUST A YES OR NO QUESTION OH MY GOD ANSWER IT ALREADY!"

Are you saying speech and a call to action are the same?

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Yes you can if its on fire. That's why its a call to action.

Well no shit, sherlock.  We were discussing the exceptions.  You cannot yell "fire" if it ain't on fire.  All kinds of exceptions exist.  

[hayden_horn 11362]

^this is exactly what this thread makes me think.

jesus christ, seed. stop for a couple of minutes and think things through. 

let's start with a question: what do you think limits speech? is it the discussion of voting power?

[seven 1367]

So what was the leap you made that normalizing the voting power between urban and rural areas would lead to the abolishment of the first amendment?

I realize I'm asking for the thought process of a dumbass, but I'm curious. 

[seven 1367]

If anything, normalizing voting power is a celebration of free speech. It's such a weird threadjack 

[wildcat09 29349]

17 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So full of shit

2.8 million more votes total for Clinton

Or 2,626 voting counties for Trump vs 487 counties for Hillary. 

It worked exactly as it was intended. The majority of he country chose the government. Not NY and LA

The word "county" isn't even in the Constitution. If they wanted the candidate who won the most counties to win, that seems like one hell of an oversight.

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, seven said:

So what was the leap you made that normalizing the voting power between urban and rural areas would lead to the abolishment of the first amendment?

I realize I'm asking for the thought process of a dumbass, but I'm curious. 

Oh, yeah -- he completely lost me there.

One man one vote is sacred....except it's cool to have one man's vote count 68X more than another man's vote, and to say otherwise limits free speech or something?  I think I missed a step.  Or a thousand steps.

[elfenix 34230]

17 hours ago, tjhooker said:

OK, Mr. destroy the constitution because it sucks and we can do it better now.  I actually doubt what we would put together would be better but worse.  You see what we did with Obamacare?  The new constitution would be like 10K pages.  

texas says "hi"

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

You would be crying like a stuck pig and calling for its elimination if Hillary Clinton had won the electoral college with a minority of the popular vote.

You mean like you've done since Nov. of 2016 ?

[workswithseed 2102]

"Constitution is a living document"

That's the sentence I based my question on. If its living it can be changed, I was wondering if he thought speech could be limited. 

[bad_teammate 13194]

10 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Are you saying speech and a call to action are the same?

Yes. Calls to action are a type of speech.

How else does one issue a call to action without speech?

Also, do you think we should disallow calls to action?

(You should stop posting.)

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

"Constitution is a living document"

That's the sentence I based my question on. If its living it can be changed, I was wondering if he thought speech could be limited. 

of course it could.

if we amend the constitution to eliminate or limit free speech. 

which is not at all at threat.

but, in some fantasy land, yeah, the constitution could be amended to limit free speech.

it could limit religion, the press.

in fact, once we amended it to make alcohol illegal.

then we amended it again to do away with that amendment, because it was stupid. we still kept the women allowed to vote amendment for some reason, though.

the thing has been amended 33 times. 

i really do not understand what you are getting at here.

you do know it is conceivable to amend the constitution, right?

Edited November 29, 2018 by hayden_horn

[seven 1367]

Of course it CAN be, acknowledging that doesn't equal support. 

[Js1 85311]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The word "county" isn't even in the Constitution. If they wanted the candidate who won the most counties to win, that seems like one hell of an oversight.

What this dumbfuck means is the majority of the PHYSICAL LAND IN THE UNITED STATES, which does not have the right to vote, voted for Trump.

The majority of the PEOPLE did not vote for Trump.  They do have the right to vote.  Because they aren't inanimate objects.  There are counties in this state that have less residents than my apartment building.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Js1

[wildcat09 29349]

This might be even dumber than when BurntEyes (it was him, wasn't it?) argued for pages that the 17th amendment was unconstitutional.

[elfenix 34230]

18 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So full of shit

2.8 million more votes total for Clinton

Or 2,626 voting counties for Trump vs 487 counties for Hillary. 

It worked exactly as it was intended. The majority of he country chose the government. Not NY and LA

LA and NY don't have votes.  people do.  counties don't have votes.  people do.

arbitrary bits of land getting representation may have been a necessary compromise 230 years ago, but it's outlived its usefulness.  we're not an agrarian society whose economic output is limited mostly by how much land is around.  we're a post industrial society whose economic output is limited by the number of people wielding technological levers. 

[workswithseed 2102]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes. Calls to action are a type of speech.

How else does one issue a call to action without speech?

Also, do you think we should disallow calls to action?

(You should stop posting.)

No, we have them for a reason. 

 

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

of course it could.

if we amend the constitution to eliminate or limit free speech. 

which is not at all at threat.

but, in some fantasy land, yeah, the constitution could be amended to limit free speech.

it could limit religion, the press.

in fact, once we amended it to make alcohol illegal.

then we amended it again to do away with that amendment, because it was stupid. we still kept the women allowed to vote amendment for some reason, though.

the thing has been amended 33 times. 

i really do not understand what you are getting at here.

you do know it is conceivable to amend the constitution, right?

Yeah, obviously it is. I should have asked if the bill of rights should be in part of that living document. I know most of y'all hate what's going on with unreasonable search and seizure. 

I also think that slander, libel, and call to action should be prosucuted when harm is done to individuals I'm no idiot. I just don't think that legal speech should be restricted. 

Yes, I should have worded it better, I acknowledge that.

[Bat Guano 359]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

What this dumbfuck means is the majority of the PHYSICAL LAND IN THE UNITED STATES, which does not have the right to vote, voted for Trump.

The majority of the PEOPLE did not vote for Trump.  They do have the right to vote.  Because they aren't inanimate objects.  There are counties in this state that have less residents than my apartment building.

imgur

[hayden_horn 11362]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

No, we have them for a reason. 

 

Yeah, obviously it is. I should have asked if the bill of rights should be in part of that living document. I know most of y'all hate what's going on with unreasonable search and seizure. 

I also think that slander, libel, and call to action should be prosucuted when harm is done to individuals I'm no idiot. I just don't think that legal speech should be restricted. 

Yes, I should have worded it better, I acknowledge that.

okay, that makes more sense as a line of inquiry.

yes, the bill of rights is specifically separated from the rest of the document as a set of amendments so that those things may be changed as time goes on.

somebody correct me if i got that wrong.

[Brisketexan 105095]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I just don't think that legal speech should be restricted. 

That's about as perfect an example of "begging the question" as I could ever think of.  WTF?

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

okay, that makes more sense as a line of inquiry.

yes, the bill of rights is specifically separated from the rest of the document as a set of amendments so that those things may be changed as time goes on.

somebody correct me if i got that wrong.

That makes no sense, either.  Amendments, once adopted, aren't something different, or something aside and apart from the Constitution.  The are part of the whole.  The First Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as Article I.  That's how it works.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Brisketexan

[workswithseed 2102]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's about as perfect an example of "begging the question" as I could ever think of.  WTF?

Slander, libel, and calls to action unless necessary. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Slander, libel, and calls to action unless necessary. 

Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying.

To be fair, I haven't had much idea what you're trying to say this whole tangent.  I'm getting dumber just for playing.  I'm out.

[bad_teammate 13194]

7 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

No, we have them for a reason. 

You quoted two questions, neither of which is answered by this seemingly random grouping of words. "No" to what? What is "them"?

Quote

Yeah, obviously it is. I should have asked if the bill of rights should be in part of that living document. I know most of y'all hate what's going on with unreasonable search and seizure. 

I also think that slander, libel, and call to action should be prosucuted when harm is done to individuals I'm no idiot. I just don't think that legal speech should be restricted. 

Yes, I should have worded it better, I acknowledge that.

Not only should the Constitution be considered sacred and unchangeable, but also... the law? lol holy guacamole

[elfenix 34230]

23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

okay, that makes more sense as a line of inquiry.

yes, the bill of rights is specifically separated from the rest of the document as a set of amendments so that those things may be changed as time goes on.

somebody correct me if i got that wrong.

madison thought bills of rights were illusory, and argued against them in federalist no 84 (in that the inclusion of some rights in a bill of rights would make people think that it's an exclusive list), and a measure to include a bill of rights was explicitly rejected during the convention.  it wasn't until the ratification process that a bill of rights became necessary following the massachusetts compromise, in which ratification was contingent upon the proposal of amendments by anti-federalists with the support of those amendments by the federalists.