Ah, the old “bread and circuses” dog whistle. :rolleyes:
ETA: Just out of curiousity, how has HOLLYWOOD destroyed the republic “beyond salvage”?
Looks like that is “everyone except me”. We’re so lucky to have you enlighten us…
Having grown up in one of the only 4 household with an earned income in a neighborhood that was at least 3/4 black, I have a better understanding than you do.
Why do the American People not directly elect their president?
Why did the task of choosing U.S. Senators originally fall to the state legislatures?
Why do Senators, Representatives and the President all have different term lengths?
Why is only 1/3 of the Senators chosen in any given election?
Why are federal judges appointed and not elected?
Why were the states originally allowed to require you to own property or pay a certai amount in taxes in order to vote?
Oh? Why do we have food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF and WIC? When is the U.S. going to pay off its $17+ trillion federal debt?
How many faithful, monogamous and married characters appear on American TV or in American movies?
Because directly electing a head of state was an unheard of concept in the 18th century, and because the US was originally conceived as a union of sovereign states rather than as a unitary republic.
For the record, most of the rest of the democratic nations in the world today don’t directly elect their leader either, and in parliamentary states the process is usually a lot more indirect than ours is.
See above.
Because those are all different jobs with different job descriptions.
Because the Senate is intended to be the more deliberative of the two houses of Congress, and it is therefore better served by having a rotating caucus rather than potentially consisting entirely of freshmen after any given election cycle.
In order to insulate the judiciary from the electoral process so that they can feel free to issue rulings based on the law as it is written rather than the whims of the day.
Because the Founding Fathers were one-percenter elitists who wanted to disfranchise the poor for the sake of protecting their own interests.
Because we as a people have decided that it’s in the best interest of all of us to not let people go hungry and spread disease and die in the gutter for want of food and medicine.
Why do you think it needs to?
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that defined Christian monogamy as being essential to the survival of the republic.
About as many as there are IRL.
Darn, I wondered why I wasn’t on TV.
Perhaps because our FFs believed that “it is too easy for the majority to vote to destroy society.” But, our FFs were wrong about a lot of things, as we all know.
For some pretty damned good reasons obvious to anyone who knows 20th-Century American history. And the American welfare state is pretty feeble and meager compared to those of a lot of other industrialized democracies that are generally in better shape than we are.
The question is not when, but why? Nobody holding USG bonds or T-bills is getting shorted on their dividends, AFAIK. There is no danger the USG won’t be able to meet its obligations.
About as many and as few as you’ll find in the Iliad or Shakespeare . . . How does the presence of characters not so described threaten to destroy the republic “beyond salvage”?
By jiminy, you’re right: infidelity was NEVER a problem back in the 19th century. :rolleyes:
Your personal experience and the goings on in one particular neighborhood at one particular time does not define an entire culture of people I’m sorry to say. Assigning negative stereotypes to an entire group of people based on a small subset is the very definition of bigotry actually.
Ironically, most of the first twenty or so that sprang to mind were from shows that my teabagger parents hate (Roseanne and Dan, Homer and Marge, Phil and Claire and Jay and Gloria and Cameron and Mitchell…).
Hey, Homer and Marge go to church every Sunday, too!
(“Hey, Flanders! I got some kickass seats down front!”)