JamesHackerMP

DRC? Democratic Republic of Congo? I don't completely understand your statement above. What would cause Republicans and white nationalists to win elections? Bernie Sanders could run and probably would poll a minority of popular votes, if we ditched the EC in favor of a direct, national, popular vote. I've come to the conclusion that, despite our frustration with two-party politics, most Americans are more comfortable with two parties than, say, four or five. In a sense, we make it a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts by always voting for the GOP or the dems. Now there's technically nothing to stop anyone from voting for third parties, or for those parties to win. The only thing needed is people to vote for them. But they don't, no matter how much they may say the present system sucks. However, we have had third parties win a bunch of seats in Congress, before. And don't forget the presidential election of 1860, where Abraham Lincoln was one of four candidates, and therefore managed to win with a fraction of the popular vote because he won the more populous northeastern part of the country. But I'm not just talking about the presidential elections, I'm talking about Congress, mostly. THere are places where a Democrat almost never wins, or a Republican almost never wins. It would be in these areas in which a third party--if the residents therein wanted to do so--could replace the normal token opposition party (GOP or Democrats) with one of the third parties. It's mathematically possible. We just don't do it. But the fact that we did many years ago could one day make it a serious consideration. There are presidential systems, Brazil notably, where there are a bunch of parties in Congress. A run-off system would probably allow for this in the States; but under first-past-the-post it's far less likely, I admit.

Double jeopardy is a prohibition against an individual being tried twice for the same crime (twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, I think is the specific wording.) What I asked them, was about a SC overturning a previous SC's judgment/precedent/whatever; not a criminal trial.

That's it! stare decisis...I couldn't think of that. yeah, but the two decisions you mentioned were 58 years apart. That's what I was talking about, some amount of time passing before a SC reverses a previous SC judgment---does the Supreme Court regularly overrule itself more quickly than that? (i.e., with less time having passed) Or does it usually take a while? (as in the two cases you mentioned being separated by 58 years)

Since you're so much better acquainted with civics than myself, Dougie, isn't there some sort of limits on one supreme court overturning a case from a previous court? (e.g., repealing the Roe v Wade decision)? It was explained to me and there's a latin term for it and I can't for the life of me remember it.

The Democrats never will come back to "classical liberalism", you're right. That era is over pretty much. But don't forget, the Dems didn't really embrace classical liberalism in the 60s either. The party was split between the progressive and reactionary wings at that time. That's why I complain of polarization; there used to be differences, vast differences, within both parties. Now it's only between them.

why should polarization be consistent with a free country? It hasn't always been this polarized, and it's entirely possible it wont' be in the future, necessarily. Usually polarization is a sign of increasing instability and dysfunction. Can't agree with you there. Putting it that way it makes more sense. i don't agree, but it's clear enough at least.

You just engaged again, and I ask the moderator to take note. As far as the wrongness of the Democratic Party, I have no problem with that. I'm not a Democrat and it's for a reason. What is wrong with the U.S. in my view is the polarization of both parties, rather than the faults of only one of them. When you have too few moderates in a system it can destabilize.

Can we get back to what is wrong with the United States now? If anything, the moderator should have warned about thread drift a few pages ago. We're here to make arguments not "testify". This isn't a congressional committee.

Dougie, I asked you to clarify your statements above because I wanted to give a proper response. You said "there is no need to clarify". perhaps if you could clarify the statement I asked you to, I'd have a better response. Do you think you could do that now? I also asked about citizens united and the first amendment. Again you brushed me off. It's hard to make a cogent response when I can't get one out of you

Yes, you've said that twice now. I heard you the first time.

Wasn't intended as ad hominem, you were just wide open for it. The weakness here is that you don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase an American patriot (a real patriot): "If this be ad hominem, then let us make the most of it."

You're steeped in something, that's for sure.

Yes there is. And thank God you're here to set us idiots straight, Dougie.

What laws related to the Citizens United and gun control are you specifically referencing? And can you clarify your second sentence.

If you say so, Dougie. That's not quite how it works, and I'm not just talking about what was intended to happen or what happens on paper. In order for the SC to overturn a law, the law has to be made first. By Congress. If there's gridlock in Congress, there's no law to overturn, no? The SC has historically refrained from influencing legislation while it's being made. If you wanted to say that they legislate in that they go too far when they render a judgment, OK that's probably on the mark. But as far as making the law due to gridlock in Congress, that's way off.

Forgive me, m'lord for my shameful ignorance (seems to be a lot of that going around I might add). Even in the de facto sense, the Supreme Court isn't as powerful as you seem to think. it's just that their judgments are listened to for some reason like they are gods incarnate. I've taken two courses in college on the Supreme Court (one on the first amendment, the other, civil liberties and the supreme court). So I'm far from as ignorant as you seem to assume, dougie.

Intriguing idea and you're probably right. The only problem, however is the lack of duty by American voters. We're notoriously lazy. "You mean I have to vote AGAIN? I just did that last year!" Yes, and interesting he won 19% of the popular vote in 1992; a lot more than a protest candidate usually does.

I'm sorry did you say that the supreme court can make the law? Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs a civics lesson. Certainly it's more powerful than the founders imagined it would be, in all likelihood. But I wouldn't say they make the law, or that only the SC matters. That is a definite misunderstanding of the situation.

I was right, I shouldn't have asked.

Good point. I'd ask you to clarify that but I probably shouldn't.

I'll take that as a no.

Cameron resigned for his attachment to Bremainers, perhaps May will resign due to Brexit.

Anyway, does the original poster think that we're doing anything right? Constructive criticism requires good as well as bad.

I was referring to traveling on Amtrak. It's a three day trip from the East to West coast.

It takes about three days to get from Washington (DC) to California. That might have something to do with it.