-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Democrats And Illegals
- Thread starter Adonia
- Start date
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
LOL. How can you continue to respond like that and not be inviting scathing ad hominem?
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
Have no ideas?
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
How about just following the Constitution and using the Electoral College as it is now? It worked for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Barak Obama. The best approach is the one we already have and as worked perfectly as long as we have had it.
You're Exhibit "A" of why we cannot allow Democrats to ever get their hands on the levers of power any longer. All you guys come up with are loopy ideas and nothing of substance.
It would b e nice if you understood the constitution. But that's not required to be a Trumpite. In fact the dumber the better.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
I do understand the Constitution, which is why your ideas are so unworkable and why no sane person would or could be a Democrat. It requires a hatred of America and a hatred for our Constitution. Why don't you go live in Venezuela for a while and see how socialism works for you?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
This is 777 pointing out that you are completely contradicting yourself in what you are arguing for.
This is you saying that contradicting yourself is the best approach to argument, then inviting commentary on it.
This is me asking how you can say such things and not expect serious personal criticism.
This is you asking if I have any ideas about your illogical approach and/or why you continue in that vein.
And this is me responding to your query:
Several, not all competing, but none particularly charitable, unless… No, I’m not going to say it.
This is you saying that contradicting yourself is the best approach to argument, then inviting commentary on it.
This is me asking how you can say such things and not expect serious personal criticism.
This is you asking if I have any ideas about your illogical approach and/or why you continue in that vein.
And this is me responding to your query:
Several, not all competing, but none particularly charitable, unless… No, I’m not going to say it.
And you somehow do? You do not accept our governing document as it now stands. From how we elect the President to many of the rights we now have guaranteed by it, you and your fellow travelers want to change it. Democrats and liberals like yourself look at the Constitution and say is says things it doesn't say, and also say it doesn't say what it actually says.
You "Dear Leader" Obama once said the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties". (What????) It "says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the state or Federal government must do on your behalf". (Interview with NPR in 2001). That's a chilling statement by Obama for sure.
The government needs to leave it's citizens alone, to allow us to live our lives as we see fit. (barring any criminal activity). They (the government) really has no business doing anything on our behalf except to keep within it's clearly defined constitutional powers.
Last edited:
Should this ever miraculously come to pass, the debt could be paid off in 6 months, revenue would rise so dramatically that we could get back to what I remember my parents saying: “Maxie has such a good job that he pays income tax.”
The constitution is a living document. It has been amended 27 times. Proposing a new one is perfectly acceptable. If it isn't supported, fine.
You do not understand what a "living document" is. The amendment process in fact proves it is not a living document. You need to go study what it is you are talking about.
Yes you are correct, new Amendments can be proposed but the Democrats and the left do not wish to abide by the correct and legal process in order to change things.
This reality is clearly evidenced by the ongoing "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" where left leaning states are agreeing to award their electoral votes to the person who get's the most votes nationwide in the Presidential contest despite their particular state voting for the candidate who gets the lessor amount of nationwide popular votes.
This is nothing but an attempted end run around the proper constitutional process and is therefore a patently illegal and un-constitutional action.
The electors can vote for whoever they want to vote for and have done that in the past.
Everything you need to know about the Electoral College
There is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote for whom they are pledged. Twenty-six states and D.C., however, bind their electors to vote for their promised candidates. People who vote for someone other than for whom they are pledged are known as “faithless electors” and they’ve never decided a presidential election. “Faithless electors” are rare, with only one in each of the 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1988 elections.