It's not prejudice.....it's pointing out the idioc
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 11/29/2016 6:18:03 PM
It's not prejudice.....it's pointing out the idiocy put forth by others because their candidate did not win. If you think that Hillary Clinton is not a demagogue........then all I have to say is shame on you.
You do realize that the individual that put such forth resides a couple hours North of me. As such..I know that town.....and his "democrat" principles. It's merely just another bias opinion.
Again..the Electoral College was not set up as he suggests....let's take his quote:
"Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice .”
They were to “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the selection of the President, and they were supposed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Hamilton was talking about demagogues. "
???....don't tell me what Hamilton was talking about.....no where is the word demagogue ever mentioned.
What he(Hamilton) wrote was this:
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
....sorry.....just another spin piece.....and a "load" of horse shit
You do realize that the individual that put such forth resides a couple hours North of me. As such..I know that town.....and his "democrat" principles. It's merely just another bias opinion.
Again..the Electoral College was not set up as he suggests....let's take his quote:
"Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice .”
They were to “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the selection of the President, and they were supposed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Hamilton was talking about demagogues. "
???....don't tell me what Hamilton was talking about.....no where is the word demagogue ever mentioned.
What he(Hamilton) wrote was this:
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
....sorry.....just another spin piece.....and a "load" of horse shit
(1)
(0)