Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[jamil]

This is nuance that you and I neither misunderstand nor intentionally conflate. The election for President isn't a popular election, by design. It is NOT "one man, one vote".

It is one man, one vote, for POTUS, but with the restriction that the vote is at the state level, and that the electors of the state actually cast the vote for POTUS. I think we both understand that. So to say one man, one vote, is accurate enough.

Senate makeup is also not "one man, one vote", by design. It is, "one State, two votes."

Not since the 17th amendment. That's now, one man, one vote, within the jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction gets to elect 2 senators every 6 years in a first past the post ballot election.

So, yes: I would say that, "one man, one vote" is inaccurate - and that inaccuracy is a feature, not a bug.

I wouldn't correct anyone for saying it, because it is true in the above context. But also, I doubt most people who say it understand the context in which it is true.

 

[chipbennett]

No. There is no definition of "republic" that requires states to appoint senators. The US is a republic because it derives its power from the public rather than private interests. France is a republic. Why are its senators not appointed?

I'm just going to point out that you quoted me out of context. I appended that "Yes" with "The American Republic..." I never said that all republics required our construct; rather, that the specific republic constructed by our Founders requires State appointment of Senators.

You can make the case that senators, as the founders envisioned them, should be appointed by the states to represent the state's interests. That having senators elected by the constituents of the state weakens the sovereignty of the individual states. I agree with that point. But that has no impact on whether the US fits the definition of a republic, which was the claim.

Sorry, man. I don't have the desire or energy to split hairs on this.

Obviously, there have been lots of types/constructs of republics throughout human history. That doesn't change the fact that our Founders designed a specific construct of a Republic, and that said construct included a Senate representative of, and appointed by, the several States. I don't think anyone in this discussion is lumping all types and constructs of republics into one definition, and saying that they must fit some monolithic, limited definition (except those trying to make some reductio ad dictionarium or reductio ad absurdum argument).

 

[chipbennett]

It is one man, one vote, for POTUS, but with the restriction that the vote is at the state level, and that the electors of the state actually cast the vote for POTUS. I think we both understand that. So to say one man, one vote, is accurate enough.

Not enough energy for this, either. "One man, one vote" = vote by popular election, which has zero bearing on the election for POTUS. It is why complaints that so-and-so President "lost the popular vote" is meaningless and irrelevant.

Not since the 17th amendment. That's now, one man, one vote, within the jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction gets to elect 2 senators every 6 years in a first past the post ballot election.

Clearly. And it is the reason that the 17th Amendment (both for direct election of Senators, and for Federal individual income tax) is the greatest threat to the American Republic construct of government.

I wouldn't correct anyone for saying it, because it is true in the above context. But also, I doubt most people who say it understand the context in which it is true.

It depends on the discussion. In most cases being discussed (currently, POTUS and Senate makeup), saying "one man, one vote" is inaccurate.

 

[KLB]

I swear you two would argue about what color white is.

Clearly. And it is the reason that the 17th Amendment (both for direct election of Senators, and for Federal individual income tax) is the greatest threat to the American Republic construct of government.

Greatest mistake made by this country when it comes to how things are organized. It was better to not have all seats filled all the time than to have what we have now.

 

[KLB]

 

[jamil]

I'm just going to point out that you quoted me out of context.

I didn't intend to. I'm thinking that the thing you answered "yes" to was the question at hand, so then the specific type of republic is irrelevant if we're talking about conservatives tendency to correct people who refer to the US as a democracy generally.

I appended that "Yes" with "The American Republic..." I never said that all republics required our construct; rather, that the specific republic constructed by our Founders requires State appointment of Senators.


Sorry, man. I don't have the desire or energy to split hairs on this.

Obviously, there have been lots of types/constructs of republics throughout human history. That doesn't change the fact that our Founders designed a specific construct of a Republic, and that said construct included a Senate representative of, and appointed by, the several States. I don't think anyone in this discussion is lumping all types and constructs of republics into one definition, and saying that they must fit some monolithic, limited definition (except those trying to make some reductio ad dictionarium or reductio ad absurdum argument).

Again, it's accurate enough to say the US is a democracy and not have to correct anyone who says it with, "no, it's a republic". I mean, if they think it's relevant to be more accurate, they could just say, "yeah, it's a democracy, but the way it is a democracy is as a constitutional republic, because, yadda, yadda, yadda."

 

[jamil]

Not enough energy for this, either. "One man, one vote" = vote by popular election, which has zero bearing on the election for POTUS. It is why complaints that so-and-so President "lost the popular vote" is meaningless and irrelevant.

It indeed has bearing on the election for POTUS. We have a popular election in the state for who we want the electors to vote for. They don't just vote on their own. So that's not 100% popular election, but it is significantly greater than zero, which I thought we could both agree on.

Clearly. And it is the reason that the 17th Amendment (both for direct election of Senators, and for Federal individual income tax) is the greatest threat to the American Republic construct of government.

Well. I think a strong case could be made for that. Democrats pose the greatest threat to our form of government right now. And if senators were appointed, Republicans would have a sizeable advantage in the senate. Notwithstanding that the Senators from Indiana would be molded in the character of Holcomb by the Indian CoC Republicans, I doubt a Senate with 56 republicans would go along with a lot of the nonsense now.

It depends on the discussion. In most cases being discussed (currently, POTUS and Senate makeup), saying "one man, one vote" is inaccurate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It doesn't bother me when people say it. Even if they don't know how it is what it is.

 

[jamil]

I swear you two would argue about what color white is.

Why? White isn't a color. So neener neener.

 

[BugI02]

Why? White isn't a color. So neener neener.

Neither is black. Could that be the heart of the whole racism/racialism conflict? The existential angst felt by those who secretly know they don't belong in the box of 64 colors

 

[tsm]

Just to get away from the teenagers arguing, thought I’d mention that today’s Fort Wayne paper had an article saying that Liz Brown (our local constitutional carry nemesis) is chomping at the bit to be able to push through anti-abortion legislation now that RvW has bit the dust. Apparently she’s been a proponent of limiting abortion as much as possible for years and hasn’t been able to get it done. Stay tuned.

 

[HoughMade]

So.....this is a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

See:

 

[BigRed]

Just to get away from the teenagers arguing, thought I’d mention that today’s Fort Wayne paper had an article saying that Liz Brown (our local constitutional carry nemesis) is chomping at the bit to be able to push through anti-abortion legislation now that RvW has bit the dust. Apparently she’s been a proponent of limiting abortion as much as possible for years and hasn’t been able to get it done. Stay tuned.

BigRed's opinion:
Brown is a worthless ***** regardless of her position on this matter.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 209110

So.....this is a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

See:

I just don't get the point of a sex strike. Okay so these women are not going to have sex with their boyfriends/husbands, who probably agree with them. And this solves their problem how? I mean as the other meme suggests, doesn't this sex strike help out the other side?

Do they think men have some kind of solidarity? Like, hey dude, I'm really sorry you ain't getting any. So I'm gonna stop supporting pro life.

 

[HoughMade]

I just don't get the point of a sex strike. Okay so these women are not going to have sex with their boyfriends/husbands, who probably agree with them. And this solves their problem how? I mean as the other meme suggests, doesn't this sex strike help out the other side?

It's nonsensical and is designed to accomplish nothing.

 

[jamil]

It's nonsensical and is designed to accomplish nothing.

I think it's just pure emotion. Kinda like those who advocate "don't just stand there, DO something." and this is the thing they've hastily determined. Uh. Okay. Don't have sex with your boyfriends or husbands. It's not affecting me.

 

[BugI02]

Don't the same people want to de-stigmatize sex workers? Their husbands and boyfriends will probably find a way to muddle through

 

[Mikey1911]

Don't the same people want to de-stigmatize sex workers? Their husbands and boyfriends will probably find a way to muddle through

“You may keep your sanctity; it’ll work no hardship on me. The World is full of many things, and many people—and I shan’t be lonely.”

—Rhett Butlet, after being informed of Scarlett’s proclamation of her “sex strike” following the birth of “Bonnie Blue”.

 

[Tombs]

I think it's just pure emotion. Kinda like those who advocate "don't just stand there, DO something." and this is the thing they've hastily determined. Uh. Okay. Don't have sex with your boyfriends or husbands. It's not affecting me.

They're choosing a much more moral path towards birth control, abstinence.

They should be applauded for taking the first steps into the adult world of taking responsibility.

I'd also like to take a moment to pat myself on the back for correctly predicting that the overturning of Roe v Wade wouldn't result in more unwanted children, it will just result in more responsibility being applied.

 

[tsm]

BigRed's opinion:
Brown is a worthless ***** regardless of her position on this matter.

Agree 100%, but like a stopped clock giving the time twice a day, she might end up pushing in the correct direction for once in her life!

 

[HoughMade]

...Clearly. And it is the reason that the 17th Amendment (both for direct election of Senators, and for Federal individual income tax) is the greatest threat to the American Republic construct of government...

Without getting into linguistic disputes, I'll just say that the 17th Amendment was a horrible idea and undid a very important check on the federal government, greatly weakening the states.