Representative Governments

[Walker]

It looks as if the KKK has taken control of the US. Thank you PC 'progressive' thought-police. You just had to be extremist twats, pushing people towards the right. Now look at what you've done. Self-righteous arseholes.
They claim that there is no such thing as culture, and that cultural and national identity are simply illusions, then drivel on about 'multiculturalism' and how everyone is supposed to 'embrace' this glorious melting pot that they envisage. Never mind that the reality is that people keep their cultural identity, rarely assimilate, and end up all fighting with each other and ruining previously idyllic and relatively crime-free cities and countries.

A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together.

[Walker]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

Some say the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It looks as if the KKK has taken control of the US. Thank you PC 'progressive' thought-police. You just had to be extremist twats, pushing people towards the right. Now look at what you've done. Self-righteous arseholes.
They claim that there is no such thing as culture, and that cultural and national identity are simply illusions, then drivel on about 'multiculturalism' and how everyone is supposed to 'embrace' this glorious melting pot that they envisage. Never mind that the reality is that people keep their cultural identity, rarely assimilate, and end up all fighting with each other and ruining previously idyllic and relatively crime-free cities and countries.

A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together.

Why don't you just say what you mean instead of pretending to be terribly deep and thoughtful. Your comments are incomprehensible crap.

[Walker]

It looks as if the KKK has taken control of the US. Thank you PC 'progressive' thought-police. You just had to be extremist twats, pushing people towards the right. Now look at what you've done. Self-righteous arseholes.
They claim that there is no such thing as culture, and that cultural and national identity are simply illusions, then drivel on about 'multiculturalism' and how everyone is supposed to 'embrace' this glorious melting pot that they envisage. Never mind that the reality is that people keep their cultural identity, rarely assimilate, and end up all fighting with each other and ruining previously idyllic and relatively crime-free cities and countries.

A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together.

Why don't you just say what you mean instead of pretending to be terribly deep and thoughtful. Your comments are incomprehensible crap.

Why, I always say exactly what I mean. We all do. We have no choice.

The other day I did hear a serious commentator humorously mention that the KKK consists of about a hundred hicks living in the woods and they get dragged out every 4 years at election time. That was a good one. He may have worded it differently.

That the U.S. Constitution persists through thick and thin, good times and bad, as customs change from courteous to shit-kicking frankness, lends credence to the urge to give pause and consider not only the constitution, but the climate. After all, it is the greatest threat to mankind, when it changes.

Just listen to reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTIrSUL6Gnk

[prothero]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

Unless I am mistaken the prime minister is not directly elected but instead is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in Parliament and then there is the House of Lords, so the United Kingdom is not exactly a direct democracy either. Then there is the matter of Ireland, Scotland and their direct and indirect representation and self government, a bit of a federalist system there it seems as well.

The system in the U.S. is a federalist system and powers of government are divided between the states and the federal government, with many governmental functions being reserved to the states. One of the political debates in the U.S. is the size, scope and extent of federal powers versus the rights and powers reserved to the states and indirectly to the people. Anyway you might not like our system or understand the history behind it but direct democracy (rule by the majority or tyranny of the majority) was not the founding concept. Powers were separated, the power of the federal government was limited, the states retained powers and both states rights and individual (minority) rights were protected.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

Some say the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.

And some people are idiots.
Thomas Paine was born up the road from here, he was an atheist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

Unless I am mistaken the prime minister is not directly elected but instead is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in Parliament and then there is the House of Lords, so the United Kingdom is not exactly a direct democracy either. Then there is the matter of Ireland, Scotland and their direct and indirect representation and self government, a bit of a federalist system there it seems as well.

The system in the U.S. is a federalist system and powers of government are divided between the states and the federal government, with many governmental functions being reserved to the states. One of the political debates in the U.S. is the size, scope and extent of federal powers versus the rights and powers reserved to the states and indirectly to the people. Anyway you might not like our system or understand the history behind it but direct democracy (rule by the majority or tyranny of the majority) was not the founding concept. Powers were separated, the power of the federal government was limited, the states retained powers and both states rights and individual (minority) rights were protected.

It is a direct democracy to the fact that each MP is a representative of his constituency. The PM is a temporary post contingent on the will of Parliament. In the US the President is a Day-King, with an autonomous office, and the power to appoint masses of people regardless of any democratic principle.
Trump has flooded the Cabinet with his friends and family. In the UK Cabinet members are MPs; elected.
You talk as if the US system is a carefully designed set of institutions, rather than a patchwork of contingent operations, which in fact it is.
Originally it was a way for a small band of men to seize control from the colonial authority.
It's rather ironic that a nation that considers itself so modern is so hidebound by out of date systems of power.

I'm not trying to pretend the UK could do with a lot of revision too. But were the UK to have the US's attitude the monarch would still have power and the Lords would still be an assembly of hereditary peers.

[Harbal]

Why, I always say exactly what I mean.

So you post incomprehensible crap intentionally?

[Walker]

Why, I always say exactly what I mean.

So you post incomprehensible crap intentionally?

What you worry?
Looks like a simple sentence, as sentences go.
Tips to improve comprehension.
Slow down, read slowly, focus, think.

[Walker]

And some people are idiots.
Thomas Paine was born up the road from here, he was an atheist.

Thomas Paine was born near you?
This may, in part, explain your challenges in reasoning with the tidbits you gather.
Many great men have thought the founding and framing were divinely inspired.
Look it up.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

Unless I am mistaken the prime minister is not directly elected but instead is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in Parliament and then there is the House of Lords, so the United Kingdom is not exactly a direct democracy either. Then there is the matter of Ireland, Scotland and their direct and indirect representation and self government, a bit of a federalist system there it seems as well.

The system in the U.S. is a federalist system and powers of government are divided between the states and the federal government, with many governmental functions being reserved to the states. One of the political debates in the U.S. is the size, scope and extent of federal powers versus the rights and powers reserved to the states and indirectly to the people. Anyway you might not like our system or understand the history behind it but direct democracy (rule by the majority or tyranny of the majority) was not the founding concept. Powers were separated, the power of the federal government was limited, the states retained powers and both states rights and individual (minority) rights were protected.

It is a direct democracy to the fact that each MP is a representative of his constituency. The PM is a temporary post contingent on the will of Parliament. In the US the President is a Day-King, with an autonomous office, and the power to appoint masses of people regardless of any democratic principle.
Trump has flooded the Cabinet with his friends and family. In the UK Cabinet members are MPs; elected.
You talk as if the US system is a carefully designed set of institutions, rather than a patchwork of contingent operations, which in fact it is.
Originally it was a way for a small band of men to seize control from the colonial authority.
It's rather ironic that a nation that considers itself so modern is so hidebound by out of date systems of power.

I'm not trying to pretend the UK could do with a lot of revision too. But were the UK to have the US's attitude the monarch would still have power and the Lords would still be an assembly of hereditary peers.

Excellent description of the two contrasting systems. Thanks Hobbes.

[Walker]

Ben Franklin was a great man.

“I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?”
Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 (Motion was defeated for lack of funds to pay a minister.)
- Benjamin Franklin

[Londoner]

Ben Franklin was a great man.

“I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?”
Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 (Motion was defeated for lack of funds to pay a minister.)
- Benjamin Franklin

If 'God governs in the Affairs of Men' then if you changed the Constitution then that must be God's will too.

[Harbal]

Looks like a simple sentence, as sentences go.
Tips to improve comprehension.
Slow down, read slowly, focus, think.

I wasn't talking about that sentence. If I remember correctly, this was the offending passage, as pointed out by VT: "A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together".

[Walker]

Looks like a simple sentence, as sentences go.
Tips to improve comprehension.
Slow down, read slowly, focus, think.

I wasn't talking about that sentence. If I remember correctly, this was the offending passage, as pointed out by VT: "A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together".

So that’s the one. That was in fact in reference to a statement, which was initially quoted. To separate a statement intended to reference, from what it references, for the purpose of criticizing said referential statement, or for the simple uncritical labeling as crap if crap is a separate expulsion, is called “taking out of context.”

You should know, if your objective is in fact clarity, that removing from context in such a manner opens a greater possibility for less understanding of that statement. Not more. In fact, this dynamic version of ignorance is how aspects of the past get condemned as unnecessary.

Misinterpretation can be willful, in which case it is likely motivated by some sort of agenda, which could be as simple as a haha. If not willful, then misinterpretation based on omission is simply sloppy, which could be a reflection of the attitude that this is just a philosophy forum after all, and who really cares.

There are antidotes and balancing actions available for coordinating action when the uncaring begins to persist into sloppiness. For instance, in the non-discriminatory elevation of all that grabs attentions via equanimity, whatever one does is worthy of doing. The sloppiness of course can extend to include understanding. Sloppiness of understanding. Suggested contemplation: call off the divorce, marry the referential and referenced back together, consider in context as the third entity of knowing.

However, there are limits even to silliness, so you’re on your own if the contemplation should yield any conclusive insights, since that would be a personal matter only loosely related to the origins of the contemplation and therefore, a fresh topic.