Not necessarily. It is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
Would it work here?
- Thread starter jaminjim
- Start date
Not necessarily. It is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
He's inconsistant. Egypt uprising for democracy is a beautiful thing for him from a distance, but when it's happening close to home it sux.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm afraid that I have to (somewhat) disagree with your conclusion though .... here's the problem(s):
Healthcare was passed by the US Congress, and signed by the President. The constitutionality of it is yet to be definitely resolved.
The Tea Party was in opposition to it, and those in the Executive and Legislative that passed it.
You were expecting those that passed it to buddy up and coffee-klatch with those in the Tea Party that opposed it, to discuss how it could be rolled back or repealed ?
Part of the problem was how the original question (that you were replying to) was posed - certainly some in government did hear. These folks, at that time, were the opposition, in the minority.
Sorry, but I guess I don't see the inconsistency. But I certainly would never underestimate the arrogance of those in power.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
The government is ours to reform or abolish if we please. So if tomorrow, the People decide we aren't going to have the same model of government, or that each and every sitting politician on the federal level is out on their @$$, then so it is.You mean overthrow the President who the majority of people voted for?
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Last edited:
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, American Statesman and Patriot
There are many things much more dear than one's immediate life, as many on here well know.
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
Are you saying that the people would take up arms against their own Government?
or
much like Egypt vast, ongoing demo's until said Govenment was ejected?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm saying that people would likely first attempt to petition their own government and political leaders for redress ..... that is happening now to a great degree in a number of ways: thru the normal political process at the Federal level, thru the states suing the Federal government ...... as a couple of examples ..... by those that aren't too busy watching American Idol or whatever ....
However, things can reach a tipping point .... given the right conditions .... after that, it's anybody's guess ...
Given oppressive enough conditions, I'm quite certain what I would do ....
One of the main reasons that the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution was as the ultimate check and balance over our government. Armed citizens help to insure that a government will NOT become oppressive.
We are a LONG way from that, but, things could change in a heartbeat. IF this government continues to try to do away with or circumvent our Constitution for it's own power anything may happen.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You know it won't change in a heartbeat. We are no where near seeing it change suddenly and if it does, then there it raises serious questions about how much can the "leaders" in government depend on other people to carry out their will - I'm thinking that it will be unlikely that it would last longer than a week if that.
Remember that the entire rights structure is built on the 10th amendment, not the first or second. Without the 10th, the state and people's sovereignty over the feds and that right allows the others to be free of interference is gone.
This means that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate authority of the nation, that is actually the states and people. Like the case of California and Gay Marriage, the SC overstepped its authority by saying a state constitution amendment is unconstitutional. By doing so, they effectively told the state that the 10th amendment is nullified.
Remember that the entire rights structure is built on the 10th amendment, not the first or second. Without the 10th, the state and people's sovereignty over the feds and that right allows the others to be free of interference is gone.
This means that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate authority of the nation, that is actually the states and people. Like the case of California and Gay Marriage, the SC overstepped its authority by saying a state constitution amendment is unconstitutional. By doing so, they effectively told the state that the 10th amendment is nullified.
The SC AND the rest of the federal government has been out of control for decades, maybe more than a century. We have been allowing them to get away with this. It IS our fault.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of your question:
There were huge demonstrations in Alexandria and a number of other cities in Egypt.
Try Al Jazeera English if you want coverage of a lot of Middle East events that you will absolutely never get via the US MSM:
Al Jazeera English
Of course, some will never, ever bother to even look (good little boys and girls don't look where Mummy and Daddy says they shouldn't .....
) ..... since the USG did the functional equivalent of declaring them an enemy of the state ....(It's been reported independently that Alfred E. Bush actually stated that he wanted to bomb AJ's HQ in Doha, Qatar)
Last edited: