10-14-2020, 08:48 PM
(10-14-2020, 08:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The timing is simply due to the fact that rule by the minority is happening right now.
You can make that argument, but you can also make the exact same argument I did. Neither can be discounted summarily.
Quote:We could not complain about it when Obama was in office because he won the popular vote.
First off, who is "we"? Secondly you're actually aiding my side of this argument with this statement.
Quote:I don't think you understand what the founding fathers were talking about.
No?
Quote:Please provide a link to any of them saying that a minority should rule over and control a majority. Or at least provide a link to the context of when they addressed the problem of "the tyranny of th majority"
Sure. It's a central theme of The Federalist Papers. James Madison was probably the biggest advocate of protection against the tyranny of the majority.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110431595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#The_Federalist_Papers_and_ratification_debates
In fact the checks and balances of our current system, that you are advocating to dismantle, are specifically designed to prevent this type of abuse. If the majority of US citizens voted to expel all illegal immigrants with no process or debate would you be in favor of this? Your position on majority rule would indicate that you would, but somehow I doubt you, personally, would approve of this and would instead look to the judicial system as a break on this kind of action. Essentially, you appear to be in favor of pure majority rule because you perceive yourself to be part of that majority. If you did not then your position on this topic would almost certainly be different.
