A party of Democrats.
hurr hurr hurr. This joke must get laff riots on Free Republic dot com.
I am proposing un-gerrymandering a Democratic district. The United States. For presidential elections. The big enchilada.
I think you mean Republics.
Good for you. How will repealing the 17th Amendment help you accomplish that?
(p.s. The carryout window is one website over.) 
That seems to neglect political reality. And how is it that disproportionate influence is fine internationally on a per capita basis with the existence and acceptance of nations but political subdivisions smaller are intrinsically absurd?
By your logic we should have one global democratic government.
Pardon me while I consult the liberal hive mind, to see if they have a clue what the hell you are talking about.
This might take a long time.
When every slight, real or imagined, directed towards Republicans or conservatives is purged from this site you may have a point with that pedantry.
28th Amendment: The senators from a state shall be elected by a Condorcet voting system by all members of the legislative body of the state.
That was hard.
Oh, was RNATB railing on about the imagined slight of calling the Democrtic Party the Democrat party?:rolleyes: Yes, a a few Pubbies used that as a derogatory but us Democrats have always owned both terms.
No, he was just pointing and laughing, like we all do.
So the robe-wearers saw the outcome of the brute force contest and decided to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to their own government’s action? If the order of events had been reversed, you and the other poster may have an argument. But, no.
So you can’t tell us how the Civil War was anything other than the suppression of a rebellion as authorized by the Constitution. As for secession, see Texas v. White for the robe-wearers’ view.
The level that dropped atomic bombs, firebombed Tokyo, slaughtered millions of Asians and Arabs, committed genocide against the Native Americans, locked Japanese in concentration camps, perpetrates mass surveillance, committed torture in the 21st century and abided slavery is less tyrannical than the state level. Interesting perspective.
You win the “whataboutism” trifecta!!!:rolleyes:
Yes I’m aware of their post civil war endorsement of their government’s action. I alluded to it in my post.
Perhaps your argument is with the poster I was responding to who claimed the nature of the Union changed with the Civil War, if the nature of the Union did not change until Texas V. White, then the Civil War was illegal. I’ll let you guys hash it out and get back to what position you would like to take this time.
The poster made a claim that the state level was the most tyrannical. It isn’t. Unless you take a particular ethnocentric point of view shared by alt-righters, which would be a bit naughty.
If you got nothin’, then it’s better to just not post that fact.
Since you ask: The *constitutional *nature of the US never changed by force of arms, but its *political *nature certainly did. After the war, national politics were no longer dominated or constrained, by the slavery issue (other, related issues did spring up, of course), and the idea that secession was allowable (it never was) was put to rest. The states’ rights issue (which is contrary to the Supremacy Clause - see, there’s that Constitution again!) that was previously used to justify slavery and later used for Jim Crow (and still is) lingered, and still does, but with ever-decreasing ability of its supporters to claim it’s about anything respectable.
This is all basic Civics Class stuff, really.
The level that dropped atomic bombs, firebombed Tokyo:* both during a war which the other guys started and who commited atrocities far worse.
, slaughtered millions of Asians and Arabs, : ???
Viet Nam?
committed genocide against the Native Americans: occured mostly before 1776 and most of the rest before the Civl war.
*
abided slavery: Occuured before the Civil war.
Before the Civl War the USA was still to a large extent a loose confederacy of States. Ie. “Small government”.
The shifting of the goal posts is nothing new here.
Is your definition of tyranny how a country treats its own people, or how it treats other people?
I guess this is nitpicking, but I’d use other words to describe a government that invades neighbors and so on. I think the common use of the word tyranny would be the use of government force against its own people in unfair ways. And if that is the case, I think the average American is probably much more concerned about how they are treated by cops than whether the metadata of their phone calls is being used in a secret way.