1. 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!

The Democrats Are The Enemy From Within

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Adonia, Mar 19, 2019.

  1. Adonia

    Adonia Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    941
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Yes, the Democrats are the "enemy from within" that we have been warned about. They are in the process of violating the Constitution big time at this junction in our nation's history. The biggest threat from them is that they want to turn our Constitutional Republic into a "pure democracy", something that the Founding Fathers wanted no part of.

    Leading Democrat politicians have come out for the outright elimination of the Electoral College and going instead to a direct election of the President by popular vote. Have any of these Democrats proposed doing this constitutionally by the amendment process? No! They are doing it though a subterfuge called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact".

    This "Interstate Compact" is an agreement whereby a group of states states are awarding their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, even though the voters of their states voted for the person who lost the popular vote tally. This is an affront to our constitutional representative republic and directly contravenes the Electoral College system now in place and must be fought by all the means at our disposal.

    Add to that their outright hatred of the 2nd Amendment, their push for a Socialist state, their desire to pack the Supreme Court, their support for lowering the voting age (more voters for them) and allowing illegal aliens to vote and there can be no doubt anymore that the Democrats are indeed the enemies of all freedom loving persons in this country.
     
    #1 Adonia, Mar 19, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry to have missed this post earlier, as the topic is important. I had not heard about this tactic.

    No wonder the Dems were dead set against Kavanaugh. The premise is unconstitutional, and now they want to attempt an end run around the constitution to achieve their ends? I have to hand it to them, they are a fiendishly clever bunch. Change their votes after the election is over? I cannot see how that could possibly hold up in court.
     
  3. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You can find plenty of arguments.

    Yes, the compact is constitutional because the Constitution, after all, doesn't care a whit about how electors are chosen because the document leaves it entirely up to the states to determine the process. The state legislatures could, Constitutionally speaking, appoint the electors or have a blue-ribbon commission appoint the electors. (The latter, BTW, has been done.)

    No, it is unconstitutional because the states' ability to choose electors is a delegated power from the national government and introducing a method of selecting electors never argued during the convention and never used historically is not within the powers of the states.

    Who's right? Got me. But is is a bit of delicious revisionism to see such odd adherents of states' rights and of strict constructionism on seemingly different sides of the electoral fence.

    The thing, of course, will go nowhere. It's a compact, which means that if things aren't working out the way they're supposed to, say, a different party takes control of the legislature, a state can just withdraw.

    What are the chances that Oklahoma, for example, would join such a compact? (For your edification, a Democratic presidential candidate has not carried the state since 1964.)

    Would a purple state opt for it? Not likely. If you're a swing state, candidates show up in your front yard to ask for your vote. They're not going to give up the opportunity to influence the vote. (BTW, in 2016 neither Clinton nor Trump bothered to campaign in Oklahoma.)

    Aside from all the blather, it is important that the electoral vote bear some resemblance to the popular vote. The Electoral College has never functioned as imagined (at least since 1796). It's main beneficial function has been to legitimize the winner by allowing him to pile up a large majority of electoral votes to provide something of a mandate. Kennedy had a razor-thin win over Nixon in the popular vote, and Nixon's small popular margin translated into a big win in the Electoral College.

    It can even provide some stability someone loses the popular vote by a small margin (as in Bush 2).

    But this is not 1789. A system that continues to elect a president not supported by a plurality of the American people (let alone by a margin of nearly 3 million votes) cannot be defended rationally.
     
  4. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The national presidential election is not based on individual votes but on states, though there are a few states that split them somewhat.

    The whole reason for two houses of congress was to help ensure the smaller states would not be completely overwhelmed by the more populous states. Electors are precisely based on the number of representatives of a state. Had there not been this solution, there would have been no union. If this solution is eroded, the basis for the union is compromised.

    But changing your vote after an election just sounds bogus. Like changing your bid on a contract after the sealed bids are opened.

    To change all of the votes of the people of the state to the candidate who lost the electoral vote also sounds bogus. Seems they could legitimately split their electoral votes like a few other states do, though, that is, according to how their own denizens voted.
     
  5. Adonia

    Adonia Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    941
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Sure it can. If people only understood that we are a Constitutional Republic, then there would be no problem. But for the last 30 years Democrats have been repeating the words "our democracy" over and over again and people have started to believe that we are indeed a democracy when we really aren't. We only use the democratic process in a very small way, i.e. to elect our representatives and that's it.

    If we used the popular vote, then only a few states with the largest populations would be electing the President. The Electoral College spreads the election across the whole country, which I believe was the intent of the Founders. Go popular vote and the middle of the country would become irrelevant. I certainly don't want the big liberal leaning population centers on both coasts electing the President of their choice every 4 years.

    But it's not only the Electoral College that the Dems are whining about, but the fact that each state no matter what size they are has 2 senators.

    Once again I say the Democrats hate our Constitution the way it exists. No elected Democrat politician should ever take the oath of office that says in part: "To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" - they simply do not subscribe to such a thing anymore.
     
    #5 Adonia, Mar 23, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...