Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JamesHackerMP last won the day on May 7 2018

JamesHackerMP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About JamesHackerMP

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 07/17/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Province of Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

3,488 profile views
  1. Got to agree with you on that. Why proselytize when they already have a religion of their own? There's nothing wrong with trying to spread your own views, until you start thinking that yours are so superior that you have to go around correcting other peoples'.
  2. Well, that's the danger of being a "predictable" voter, or someone who is loyal to one party: your vote is "expected" and the party or candidate in question doesn't have to work for your vote, since you've just given it away readily. Notice that battleground states are the ones that can go either way. Ohio for example, which is the mother of all battleground states, has a large percentage of moderate unaffiliated voters. Maybe if people stopped treating federal politics like baseball (rooting for the "home team" and only caring that they win) they would have more power over politicians, however many parties there were/are.
  3. Yeah, but we still aren't talking about double jeopardy, we're talking about the SC overturning judgments it previously made.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Yes, you've said that twice now. I heard you the first time.
  14. 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."
  • Create New...