Biden 2020

Marek

Banned
It was public school, that's implied.

And in your world Tennessee public schools would teach creationism, that dinosaurs were placed like easter eggs by God to test our faith, and that rape babies are a blessing that must be birthed and nutured without government assistance.

If you dont like it, move!
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Americans complain about having a binary political choice yet tend to resist any and all third party candidates. Rank choice voting would solve the spoiler/vote wasting concern. There are options if you bother to do some research beyond what you were told in middle school.

Multiple party candidates works out incredibly in Russia, where Putin hand picks his opponents.
 

LoneSage

A Broken Man
20 Year Member
My middle school civics teacher was legendary. Dude used to be a football coach in a high school but was caught on camera saying football games needed more white student attendance. Then he got re-assigned to my middle school to teach civics. I don't think I ever saw him smile.
 

wyo

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
10 Year Member
Oh I read it. It was cringe. Like Wyo defending Alex Jones. Bernie claimed it was a joke in bad humor. But the saying about every joke having a bit of truth can be restated that every joke reflects the joker’s perception of truth.

Sounds conspiratorial. Sometimes a joke is just a joke.
 

LoneSage

A Broken Man
20 Year Member
He probably had the worst kind of social studies teacher: the teacher who asserts and teaches his own political values as correct.

Mr. Henson was a saint, A SAINT!

Well, except that one time he said high school football games needed more white people.

But he was A SAINT!
 

LoneSage

A Broken Man
20 Year Member
Someone winning less votes and being declared winner isn't how democracy works either.

I was teaching the Revolutionary War this morning, and the Chinese kid asked me about voting. Then he asked how a president can win if the other person got more votes. I tried explaining and was told because rural votes count more than city votes, but I got flustered because truthfully I don't understand either. Then he asked why do rural votes count more than city votes and I said I don't know.
 

oliverclaude

General Morden's Aide
Then he asked why do rural votes count more than city votes and I said I don't know.

Your answer is so 1960, pure Fred Flintstone. Today, as a modern teacher, you just reply: ask the internet. Wait, you're still in China, right? Carry on...
 

lithy

LoneSage: lithy is just some degenerate scumbag
20 Year Member
Then he asked why do rural votes count more than city votes and I said I don't know.

Because that is how the Constitution set it up, it really is that easy. It was a part of the compromise with Senators being equal at 2 per state and Representatives apportioned by population. And it isn't quite rural/urban as it is low population states, of which many are rural sure, but some Northeastern states qualify too.

In 1788 Virginia had 12 electors, Delaware had 3. According to the 1790 census, Virginia had a population of ~750,000. Delaware ~60,000. Delaware had one vote per 20,000 residents, while Virginia only had one vote per 62,500. A vote in Delaware counted 3 times as much.

This is the system. Don't like it? Sure, complain, try to change it, but anyone running for president knows the system is what it is. Suggesting that someone else should have won based on the popular vote is dumb.
 

LoneSage

A Broken Man
20 Year Member
Because that is how the Constitution set it up, it really is that easy. It was a part of the compromise with Senators being equal at 2 per state and Representatives apportioned by population. And it isn't quite rural/urban as it is low population states, of which many are rural sure, but some Northeastern states qualify too.

In 1788 Virginia had 12 electors, Delaware had 3. According to the 1790 census, Virginia had a population of ~750,000. Delaware ~60,000. Delaware had one vote per 20,000 residents, while Virginia only had one vote per 62,500. A vote in Delaware counted 3 times as much.

This is the system. Don't like it? Sure, complain, try to change it, but anyone running for president knows the system is what it is. Suggesting that someone else should have won based on the popular vote is dumb.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me.

lithy, do you think it is a good system?

I'd give my life for the American Constitution. It's a sacred thing that should be guarded.
 

Tw3ek

69Vapelord420
10 Year Member
Because that is how the Constitution set it up, it really is that easy. It was a part of the compromise with Senators being equal at 2 per state and Representatives apportioned by population. And it isn't quite rural/urban as it is low population states, of which many are rural sure, but some Northeastern states qualify too.

In 1788 Virginia had 12 electors, Delaware had 3. According to the 1790 census, Virginia had a population of ~750,000. Delaware ~60,000. Delaware had one vote per 20,000 residents, while Virginia only had one vote per 62,500. A vote in Delaware counted 3 times as much.

This is the system. Don't like it? Sure, complain, try to change it, but anyone running for president knows the system is what it is. Suggesting that someone else should have won based on the popular vote is dumb.

The one thing I don't understand is why we can accept that 200+ years ago so many other things were wrong but the Constitution is flawless. It was good, sure, but why treat it like it's this perfect beacon for all time?
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
The one thing I don't understand is why we can accept that 200+ years ago so many other things were wrong but the Constitution is flawless. It was good, sure, but why treat it like it's this perfect beacon for all time?

We don’t. We have had over 20 amendments to the constitution. Yet your sentiment is pretty interesting. In fact, I would dare to call it simulated.

Recently we have seen ultra wealthy types, such as Robert Mercer, make clear warning shots to the very existence of the constitution, with a desire to completely rewrite it on their dystopian terms. And they have been using media and backing specific groups strategically to change and control the discourse, or, as Trump’s former temporary AG called it, the marketplace of ideas.

Here is an example of what I mean:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...75c81e-83fe-11ea-a3eb-e9fc93160703_story.html

Ok, so who are these Mercers?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...what-the-powerful-mercers-really-want/514529/

What’s it all have to do with changing the constitution?
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22606539/republicans-constitutional-convention-of-states/

There. If you read those three articles you will have a good idea of where I am coming from on these points.
 

Tw3ek

69Vapelord420
10 Year Member
We don’t. We have had over 20 amendments to the constitution. Yet your sentiment is pretty interesting. In fact, I would dare to call it simulated.

It may be. I'm mostly going off personal experience and I guess I should have specified, but I was talking mostly about lithys comments and dealings with other libertarians.
 

lithy

LoneSage: lithy is just some degenerate scumbag
20 Year Member
The one thing I don't understand is why we can accept that 200+ years ago so many other things were wrong but the Constitution is flawless. It was good, sure, but why treat it like it's this perfect beacon for all time?

Thomas Jefferson said:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country.
///
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.
///
Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Maybe not much to add that hasn't already been said. I'm sure I've oversimplified the perfection of the document in pursuit of an argument before, but who among us isn't guilty of hyperbole from time to time...

I am under no illusions that the Constitution is perfect, although I believe it to be a great achievement, possible the crowning achievement of the 200 or so years of political and social Enlightenment that preceded it. I do however believe that it is the supreme law of the land, right or wrong, better or worse. It is not representative of our system of governance, it IS our system of governance. So...

My frustration generally lies with those who would simply ignore it or more accurately, ignore only the parts they want to ignore at their convenience. If a system of government that is obsolete should be changed there are, in my mind, two solutions. To work within the proscribed system to make changes as needed or to discard it entirely as a form of revolution and start anew. To work within the Consitution for an amendment is difficult, some recent political scientists have even described it as impossible anymore. I don't believe that, I just believe we have not found anything so worth an Amendment if we still land in 50/50 territory.

I could probably type more, but yeah, I have reverence the founders and the Constitution because I find their lives intreresting and their work impressive. But they were men and not gods, I understand that. People were arguing over the 'intent' of the Constitution before the founders were even dead, after all.
 
Top