-31
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
-31 points (15.6% liked)
Conservative
363 readers
64 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Nowhere did you explain why it's better and now you're continuing to dance around the point.
Quit the bullshit and answer this concisely:
Why is a system where citizens in a few states to have disproportional power better than one where individuals are equal?
And don't just vaguely gesture at the country again. Worse systems have lasted way longer so "see? It clearly works!" is not a valid argument.
I explained why it’s better. Stability. Not sure why that answers seems to confuse you. It’s the stated reason for the system. A popular vote would destroy the country within a few elections. No thank you.
"My anti-tiger rock works because I haven't been attacked by a tiger so it clearly provides stability. If I didn't have my anti-tiger rock, I would be killed by a tiger within a few years. No thank you."
You don't have any reasons why it's better, I guess. Surprising :)
The burden isn't on me. You are suggesting a constitutional change. The burden is on you as to why it's a good idea. You would need an amendment, and 3/4 of the states must agree. That isn't happening as logical people know why we have the current system in place and why it isn't changing.
Didn't answer the question and rambled about something else instead. No wonder you like Trump
Who said I liked Trump ? You don’t seem to make sense. You would to change the constitution for an inferior system and don’t get the states would vote it down for that reason. Small states are not going to give up their votes.