Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College.

No, it does not. It actually reinforces the fact that our government is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy the majority can and does tyrannize the minority.

Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rams-brian-kemp-election-not-stolen.html

When people make comments like that I have to conclude they are ignorant of political realities.

Because he was unable to close it does not make him a conservative. It does make him a person with an administration which was unable to convince all the necessary powers, foreign and domestic, to close it down. He was not a dictator or a wannabe dictator like Mr Trump and so it was not closed down despite the administration trying.

why would you not look in the mirror and realize this comment applies to you???? self righteous arrogance perhaps??

and why do Republicans as soon as they gain office pass laws to disenfranchise political opponents? could it be to maintain their power? I am a lot amazed you do not understand nor comprehend political realities.

o well

So many protections for black slaves and white women. You're hilarious, sir.

Once again, because my point has eluded you, big states already do get the presidential hopefuls, small states don't. The only reason why Iowa and NH are in play now is because they are early primary states and for no other reason. Nobody cares about them once their primary is over.

...because a NOV 18, 2018 6:57 PM article is so current and up-to-date? Your stellar thinking and analysis amazes me sir. At least my link was written within the last 3 days and has much more current information and findings from investigations.

Welcome back again, SenHat. I wish to provide a lengthy response to your tirade/posts, but I don't want to appear to be picking on you. I would suggest, however, two things: One, actually read the post before dismissing it. You are missing a lot of significant data, something that a true conservative wouldn't do. Second, we still have rules here at the Rant, and yes, they can result in sanctions. The kind of dismissive tone you have taken, and personal attack is unjustified. (See notes below) Even if you disagree, even vehemently, you should disagree with the substance (and provide citations for assertions), and not disparage and characterize the poster. That goes for everyone, BTW. We have been a bit lax about some rules recently, but that is not one that has varied.

Perhaps, my friend, you can provide examples that demonstrate your point?

I can answer that! The majority of States in the United States have rural populations. The most populous States, and those with more urban areas, are resoundingly Democratic. In some cases, the makeup of the State chambers and offices is an accident of geography. Increasingly, however, the makeup is skewed by virtue of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Those are topics for other threads, so I won't lard this one with citations. I will also note that "conservative" and "Republican" are not coextensive, as you have used them here.

I commend you on your mindreading prowess! But, you make a huge mistake in asserting that "Liberals" are, generally-speaking, "close minded". I am not sure what you are basing that characterization on, but, in my view, it is pretty far from an accurate assessment - indeed, it would be hard to see reality from there. On the first point, you are decidedly wrong. On the second, I have a hard time disagreeing.

Care to elaborate? There is substantial scholarly support for the assertion. Again, hyperbole does not do much to further your argument. Substantively, there is not much to work with here, as the statement has no empirical support whatever. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 13,131,431, about half of whom are voting age. That represents a little less than 4% of the US population, and even less of the voting population.This statement is based upon a fundamentally flawed logic. I think what you really mean (please correct me if I am wrong) is that because the greater part of the population is a) more liberal than you like, and b) concentrated in urban areas, you don't wish that majority population to make policy decisions on behalf of the United States. The problem is, that is inherently illogical. The central premise of "democracy" is that majority rules, yet you prefer that the minority dictate the rules for the majority of the population (generally and historically speaking 3-4% more than conservatives) simply because your minority views clash with their sensibilities. How is this in any way logical or in keeping with the spirit of democratic rule?

[There is significant evidence to the contrary]I believe you do care, my friend, which is why I welcome your return. All I ask now is two things: Be polite (it's a rule), and put up (provide support for your assertions).

The immediate and most obvious answer is that the GOP gerrymandered their way into prominence after their 2010 TBagger take-over of Congress.

I know that I can be self righteous and arrogant but you had to turn my comment around because you do not think it applies to you.
Politicians, Republicans and Democrats do that because as Lord Acton said power corrupts.

In a general setting there would or could be some validity to your comment but I don't think that is the case with my responses. In general I am not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe or to demonstrate or argue only my argument is correct or valid, rather I have simply pointed out the many problematical statements you have made. Perhaps my arrogance would be to hope by pointing out the problems in your statements you would reconsider your position more objectively. You see, when you respond it is a blanket, I am wrong, and when I ask for specifics, you provide none.


I say pooh pooh

The only thing which is true and valid is people do want to get power and maintain it. The question is how they do it. It is well known Republicans are far better at gerrymandering than Democrats, and I will not speculate n why that would be. However, Republicans as a matter of ideology, immediately try to disenfranchise opposition party voters, otherwise known as cheating, to maintain that power. So I am curious, how exactly do Democrats try to disenfranchise Republican voters?

Yup.

By legitimately winning the election and not lowering themselves to the GOP cheating ways. GOP'ers hate that!

You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
When our Constitution was written the idea that men, and at the time only men, could govern themselves was an extremely radical idea. There were thoughts to include women and slaves, but the radical idea of self government had to be implemented slowly if were to survive. To judge the authors of our Constitution by today's standards is ludicrous. As with any idea it must first be made to make and then it can be improved on. Our Constitution and the idea of self government it created was limited in what it could do as a reflection of the time it was written. At that time the idea of self government, if only by men, was a radical, as I said, an extremely radical one. To extend its protections to women and slaves would have prevented it from not only being written but from creating the government that could and would include almost everyone.

My point was not just about the primaries. Without the Electoral College a Presidential campaign would not need to have a campaign organization in all 50 states. In states where one party usually wins the the popular vote there are Presidential campaigns from both parties because of the Electoral College. Although they are small there were still Republican and Democrat Presidential campaign offices and staffs in all 50 states because of the Electoral College.

The article I posted a link was older than the yours. But the one I posted was correct in the advice that it gave. The advice to not contest the election because in the long run doing so would only hurt those who were complaining. Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Being sore losers seems to be something the Democrats are becoming very good at.