Back up in the thread. You just jumped in and made an unrelated comment to what we had been discussing
Landslide victory for Newsom in California
- Thread starter Faithoverbelief
- Start date
That doesn't necessarily follow.
I think the Senate gives excessive power to small underpopulated rural states and less power to states where most Americans actually live.
So you are opposed to minority rights for selected groups of people
Whateverman
Well-known member
You're more than welcome to offer alternative explanations, but be forewarned that @Faithoverbelief explanation is certainly reasonable.
If Texas maintains their draconian abortion and voting restrictions and their lax gun laws, fewer companies that rely on a highly educated workforce will move there.
And you are opposed to the founding fathers who saw the majority running roughshod of minorities of states with small populations.
So you think you can overrode their decisions because you know better.
Oh please. Minorities should most definitely have the right to vote, but if a position held by a particular minority does not win in an election or referendum, then too bad, so sad. That is how democracy works.
Are you opposed to elections?
Don't be assinine. On the one hand you enough majority rule and on the other hand you criticize people in a state you do not live in because you disagree with them. You are being two faced.
No, the minority should always have the right to vote, but if the positions they take are unpopular with the voting public, then they lose.
Are you seriously arguing that minorities should be in charge even if they lose elections?
Faithoverbelief
Well-known member
If that helps you sleep at night.....
There should certainly be a balance of power, but balance does not mean giving excess weight to small underpopulated states and allowing their positions to prevail against the will of the majority of Americans.
I said nothing about me. I said that companies that employ educated people are not likely to decide to move to Texas given their positions on voting rights, abortion and gun control.
I would not move there and in fact would not visit.
So someone in New York should be able tell some one in South Dakota how to live their lives
By your standards if you lived in a state that passed a law restricting abortions you would accept it because you are in the minority.
The beauty of the Constitution it gives people with a minority opinion somewhat of a say.
And thank you for admitting you are opposed to the Constitutional way our government was construction.
Huh?
If I am not allowed to criticize Texas, why are out of state conservatives allowed to criticize California?
I can tell it would make you very happy if conservative states suffered an economic downturn.
I am criticizing your double standard
We do have national standards on some things, so people in NY and SD have to meet those standards.
I do not live in a Red State and would not choose to do so, so I would not be living in a place that banned abortions.
Of course people with minority opinions should have a say, but if they cannot convince the rest of us, then their opinion does not become law.
I am in favor of Constitutional principles being held and enforced. Like the emoluments clauses, for example.