[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

It is not all or nothing. Protection of minorities is built into the fabric of our country. Protection of minorities from the majority means the same as any rights. The majority can not impose on the minorities rights.

So, the loser of elections in the USA wins… minority right????

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Regorp

As a student of the Revolutionary War, I find it interesting that our current ruling class is so similar to England and the control they had over the colonies. We all know what happened when they were unhappy with that control. I love our old USA.

Absolutely correct.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

So in theory if only one person lived in Nebraska, and 50 million people live in New York, Nebraska still has the voting power that NY has. Crazy.

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

So, the loser of elections in the USA wins… minority right????

Lest I repeat myself...

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Makes sense, until one realizes that the definition of "wealthy" will ALWAYS be made by someone who is less wealthy than the proposed level determining it.

Rather than wealth rearrangement, why not try something more positive, such as favorable business climates for those entrepreneurs just starting out? Far too many states are business-hostile: my state of origin, Minnesota, was to a fault. Business were fleeing like deranged lemmings to states such as South Dakota that had a climate that encouraged entrepreneurship rather than squelching it.

That's still wealth rearrangement. When you favor entrepreneurs just starting out, you DISfavor the CEOs of the mega-corporations. Every $10 you give to a startup is $10 less you give to a wealthy mega-corp. If you give $10 to the mega-corp, then that $10 you give to the startup won't help, because he's still the same amount of mega-bucks behind and still has the same amount to catch up on.

Wealth rearrangement is fine, if it's done in a way that allows the mega-wealthy to continue being mega-wealthy, but gives the startups a better opportunity to get into profit-making.

As for "what constitutes wealth" - I'd say Warren Buffett has a pretty good idea of the definition. If one of the wealthiest people in the WORLD says "what I make is too much" you can probably believe him.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That's still wealth rearrangement. When you favor entrepreneurs just starting out, you DISfavor the CEOs of the mega-corporations. Every $10 you give to a startup is $10 less you give to a wealthy mega-corp. If you give $10 to the mega-corp, then that $10 you give to the startup won't help, because he's still the same amount of mega-bucks behind and still has the same amount to catch up on.

Wealth rearrangement is fine, if it's done in a way that allows the mega-wealthy to continue being mega-wealthy, but gives the startups a better opportunity to get into profit-making.

As for "what constitutes wealth" - I'd say Warren Buffett has a pretty good idea of the definition. If one of the wealthiest people in the WORLD says "what I make is too much" you can probably believe him.

Yet he somehow manages to keep all of his money...

Talk is cheap...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Luggage

Statistically more people are voting with their feet away from both parties and turning independent. There lies the true hope. It has become an US versus them situation where everything has to be partisanship and not let's discuss where we can meet in the middle. Radicals on the left radicals on the right

Yup. My cousin was a life-long Republican, and Press Secretary of the Dept. of Commerce during a popular Republican President's tenure. In 2016 he left the GOP and joined me in the growing minority of Unaffiliated voters.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Lest I repeat myself...

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

No need to repeat. Still, majority rules in our elections. Latin or not.

[airstreamingypsy]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

There are two problems with the SCOTUS. First is life terms. And second they are answerable to no one (practically except themselves.)

Voting for them I think is not a good solution. I would prefer them to be chosen at random from justices that have a proven track record. But, I am not sure what that track record would be.

I think any Justice, who lies during their hearings, should be immediately tossed off the court.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yup. My cousin was a life-long Republican, and Press Secretary of the Dept. of Commerce during a popular Republican President's tenure. In 2016 he left the GOP and joined me in the growing minority of Unaffiliated voters.

Well that’s one, and you two. Btw I am an unaffiliated too. Because I vote for the person and their stands on issues and beliefs. I do not believe in herd mentality and follow either one of the two Parties like sheep.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

I think any Justice, who lies during their hearings, should be immediately tossed off the court.

And if that would apply to all politicians NONE would be left…

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

Well that’s one, and you two. Btw I am an unaffiliated too. Because I vote for the person and their stands on issues and beliefs. I do not believe in herd mentality and follow either one of the two Parties like sheep.

I don't care what a person believes in. They could be personally anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-immigration, want to do away with social security, medicare, welfare, public housing, food stamps, and want poor people to be deported to Siberia.

Their beliefs are, and should be, irrelevant. It's what they intend to act upon that matters. For example: Biden is pro-life. But as President, he supports pro-choice legislation. It's something that some people have a hard time understanding. The ability to separate your personal beliefs, from your duty to the Constitution.

As an avid roleplay gamer, this is something I understand well. The ability to separate the roleplaying from the reality. I am very much a pacifist, by nature. And yet I have no problem roleplaying a character who gets skilled up to the gills and goes out killing enemies for fun and profit. Not everyone is able to do it. My vote goes to whoever I feel will do the best job at upholding the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and support our Democratic Republic, no matter what they personally believe.

"What I want/believe" should always take a back seat to "what will uphold the Constitution, rule of law, and the Democratic Republic best" when it comes to being an elected official, in any position in this country.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

I think any Justice, who lies during their hearings, should be immediately tossed off the court.

depends on which side the justice upsets

[threeonemiles@outlook.com]

Originally Posted by jswirs

The largest threat to our country comes from within. (Trying to be PC). However, I do believe in FAITH OVER FEAR, and GOOD WILL TRIUMPH OVER EVIL, eventually.

Agree completely. Eventually can't come soon enough.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

I think any Justice, who lies during their hearings, should be immediately tossed off the court.

Well, that would include pretty much all of them...