Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[CaliCat 3,957]

14 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

It is representative of the will of the majority of states, is it not? Even moreso, it is representative of the will of the majority of counties, is it not? Just because a few big cities voted differently than the rest of the country does not mean "the will of the people was not satisfied".

It is certainly not representative of the majority of the people. That much we know. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

17 hours ago, bcking said:

If a judge's job is solely to take a "literal interpretation" of the Constitution, we wouldn't need a judge. A literal interpretation is quite easy to do. Just read it and rule based PURELY on what it says. If we did that, we would have a lot of gaps in our government. The constitution is vague in many instances. We have constantly expanded on it over time. Every amendment has had expansion based on judicial cases.

 

A judge's job is far more nuanced than that.

no to mention, the constitution was written for and by white men. literal interpretation means a lot of us don't have a constitution to consult.

[bcking 3,157]

15 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

It is representative of the will of the majority of states, is it not? Even moreso, it is representative of the will of the majority of counties, is it not? Just because a few big cities voted differently than the rest of the country does not mean "the will of the people was not satisfied".

The "Will of the People" is something that can be argued to represent an actual majority of the people (a true Democracy), or can be obtained through representatives (A Republic). So it would depend on how you define the term.

 

The "Will of the People" decided Trump based on our Republican system of government. People voted in their specific areas and "representatives" ultimately voted for him.

 

The "Will of the People", democratically, is against Trump by several million. We keep track of both (Representative/Democratic tallies) even though only the first one really matters politically/legally. The fact that we follow both suggests that, at least in the past, we have found looking at the total "popular vote" as being something helpful. I feel like in past Presidencies it is the popular vote that forms the basis of the idea that a President has a "mandate" from the people; when a large majority vote for him(her, in the future). Until this election I don't think anyone has ever argued that the electoral college gives someone a "mandate" from the people. It gives them the legal requirement to be elected President, but our country still values its Democratic ideals and from that standpoint the current "so called" President does not have the "Will of the People"

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

39 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

no to mention, the constitution was written for and by white men. literal interpretation means a lot of us don't have a constitution to consult.

The MDl keeps forgetting there are 2 ways to change the old evil white men constitution

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The MDl keeps forgetting there are 2 ways to change the old evil white men constitution

 

no forgetting (how in the world could that be forgotten?), i was speaking in regards to constitutional 'purists'.

[JayJayH 546]

On 2/7/2017 at 4:26 AM, OriZ said:

LOL. Jay likes Trump. Some people can't comprehend people with an open mind and an independent thought.

Haha. I actually don't. I just wish he was covered more accurately, just like I wish Obama was covered more accurately.

[Dakine10 5,452]

On 2/8/2017 at 9:36 AM, Nature Boy Flair said:

The MDl keeps forgetting there are 2 ways to change the old evil white men constitution

 

  What the hell is the MDI? Do independents have their own ditch now? That would explain a lot.