Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thbolt said:
Then why do you think NY can force something upon Alabama?
Click to expand...
they can’t unless you have your way and stack the deck for them
Icuka said:
Just ONE person had the power to prevent any kind of process - be it representational or any kind of democracy.
Click to expand...
happens all the time, the surprise is that a GOP’er would do it, they usually roll over
 
Icuka said:
40.png
upant:
happens all the time, the surprise is that a GOP’er would do it, they usually roll over
Click to expand...
Does it now? All the time? In the House or in the Senate? Please give us some details.
Click to expand...
Do you think the leader of the house doesn’t control what happens?
 
Thbolt said:
, I would make their representation in the federal government based on population.
Click to expand...
Sounds oddly like the house.

Of course, what is your idea for preventing states with high populations from dictating to those with low populations?

Or perhaps your goal is a tyranny.
 
Thbolt said:
Then why do you think NY can force something upon Alabama?
Click to expand...
With the senate in place, the majority that large states have is offset by smaller states.

Without the senate in place, large states are a majority. Smaller states have no say.

It is a system of checks and balances.
 
vz71 said:
With the senate in place, the majority that large states have is offset by smaller states.

Without the senate in place, large states are a majority. Smaller states have no say.
Click to expand...
You are correct. However, the current Senate majority, which represents a minority of the population, needs to remember they need to keep the consent of the governed.
vz71 said:
It is a system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...
The three branches of government provide checks and blanches, not the two houses of congress.
 
PaulinVA said:
You are correct. However, the current Senate majority, which represents a minority of the population
Click to expand...
Sorry, got stop you there.
The senate represents the states.
If you want the people represented you should be looking to the house.
PaulinVA said:
The three branches of government provide checks and blanches, not the two houses of congress.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was all of the checks and balances.
You are correct that the three branches check and balance each other. But it is also correct that the two houses balance each other.
 
vz71 said:
Sorry, got stop you there.
The senate represents the states.
If you want the people represented you should be looking to the house.
Click to expand...
No, what I said was absolutely true. It might be a feature and not a bug, but what I said still holds. A Senate majority that represents a minority of the population needs to remember that they need to maintain the consent of the governed. If they don’t, their legitimacy is in question.
 
PaulinVA said:
A Senate majority that represents a minority of the population needs to remember that they need to maintain the consent of the governed. If they don’t, their legitimacy is in questio
Click to expand...
Same can be said for the minority. This is called Empathy. Something our politicians loose once elected, it seems.
 
vz71 said:
Again, they represent the states.
That is why there are two per state regardless of population.
Click to expand...
Why are you unwilling to acknowledge my point? What I said is absolutely true.

Playing semantic games doesn’t get us anywhere. Saying “A Senate majority that represents a minority of the population” is no different than “A Senate majority that consists of states with low populations”. The effect is the same.
 
PaulinVA said:
Playing semantic games doesn’t get us anywhere. Saying “A Senate majority that represents a minority of the population” is no different than “A Senate majority that consists of states with low populations”. The effect is the same.
Click to expand...
You know I agreed with that.

Although this has not happened. Lets ponder on the what if.

Democrats said that if republicans do this. Democrats will pack the Courts. If democrats win the Presidency and the Senate. Will we have the same discussion?
 
Rockoh22 said:
Democrats said that if republicans do this. Democrats will pack the Courts. If democrats win the Presidency and the Senate. Will we have the same discussion?
Click to expand...
Well, if Democrats take the Senate then the Senate majority will represent the majority of the population, so…
 
Thbolt said:
That kind of ended with direct election of Senators. But nice insult.
Click to expand...
No insult intended.
The same point has been made multiple times from a few different people…yet it seems people still do not understand the function of the senate.
Thbolt said:
Then the House should confirm treaties and judicial appointments.
Click to expand...
Treaties and judicial appointments affect all states equally. Therefore we need the senate to preside over them.

Is it your intention that California, with much greater representation, be allowed to entangle Mississippi in some international treaty they do not agree to?
That is an affect you are arguing for without the senate.
Thbolt said:
The people of those states will have equal say as the people of larger states.
Click to expand...
Correct.
But the states are not on equal footing.
Thbolt said:
Which broke down when the Senate refused to hold hearings on Barack Obama’s choice of Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...
The system worked.
Some do not like the results, but there is no argument that the senate and president exercised their power in a perfectly legal and historic fashion.
 
PaulinVA said:
You are correct. However, the current Senate majority, which represents a minority of the population, needs to remember they need to keep the consent of the governed.
Click to expand...
yes, their own state
Icuka said:
The leader of the house has no power, and never even attempted to make a unilateral decision without allowing the members to have a say-so. That is what McConnell did.
Click to expand...
wrong, Pelosi runs the show,
Thbolt said:
Which broke down when the Senate refused to hold hearings on Barack Obama’s choice of Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...
so the senate is now making a correction, why do the Dems want to continue the error?
 
RidgeSprinter said:
We can look at David, yes something bad happened to him. He got killed by his second wife’s son.
Click to expand...
David did not get killed by his son. David’s and Bathsheba’s son died as a result of their sin. Amnon, David’s son raped his half sister Tamar,. Absalom then killed his half brother Amnon in revenge. Absalom also tried to kill his father.

Lots of bad stuff happens when you start marrying multiple wives.
RidgeSprinter said:
Yet there is also good thing, his lineage to Jesus gets reported thru a later wife via Solomon.
Click to expand...
God makes good out of evil. One of David’s ancestors was Rahab.

God’s will is never thwarted.
 
So what was the Bad thing that happened to David as a result of his multiple wives?

After doing research, I realized he died of old age in bed.
 
Last edited:
He lost a child, his son Absalom tried to kill him. His children didn’t get along and raped and killed each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top