Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "🚨 MUST-SEE update from bombshell special election" video.

  1.  @richard3793  Same people, but renamed "Freedom Caucus".
    24
  2. Didn't Comer hear Trump say that Biden as president is absolutely immune?
    3
  3. And how would you consolidate 50 different state votes into one national vote? January 6th is an example of "direct democracy". That's what you and those who want to eliminate the Electoral College, with no thought to the consequences, ignore.
    1
  4.  @willybones3890  That would disrupt continuity and stability in the law.
    1
  5.  @caeruleusvm7621  None of that answers my question. The FACT is that January 6th is an example of "direct democracy" -- which is what you are proposing. The Founders didn't reject democracy -- they institutionalized it as elections and the House of Representatives. But they well knew the dangers and weren't stupid enough to leave it unregulated. Name a few countries that had electoral colleges, and abolished them. I'll wait.
    1
  6.  @DissectGibberish  I have an education in law and constitutions are my focus. And it reflects on YOU that you make a baldfaced assertion with nothing to back it up. There are right-wingers who insist that the Founders rejected democracy. The fact is that they didn't trust it. During elections John Hancock was a wealthy "populist" who was all about democracy. Between elections he called democracy "mob rule". So the Founders institutionalized democracy within the Constitutional system -- the Constitution being LAW -- as the House of Representatives; see the raw democracy with such as Boebert and "Moscow Marge". They are willing to abuse power by abusing freedom of speech in their attack on democracy, and are able to do so because the raw democracy that is the substance of the House allows it. But it is contained within Constitutional limits, and the Senate tempers it. George Washington characterized the House as the "cup of hot tea" and the Senate as the "saucer" in which one pours the tea to cool it. What the Founders did concerning democracy was to enact LAWS to CHECK its excesses. The Electoral College is one of those checks. AS SAID: the January 6th insurrection was direct democracy; it was also "mob rule" and also insurrection. I have repeatedly, over the years that individuals have been popping off about abolishing the Electoral College asked them what they would put in its place. They never respond because they have no idea what they are talking about. Now if you have something to BACK UP your uninformed comment, present it. Otherwise, explain to us what you'd replace the Electoral College with in order to prevent direct democracy by a large minority of morons from entirely destroying the rule of law. Or are you one of the fools who actually trusts Trump and his insurrectionists know anything whatsoever about "No one is above the law"? And that law regulates and LIMITS actions that threat public health and safety -- and the rule of law?
    1
  7.  @AwkwardPain  I'm still seeking some reasoned explanation based on the Constitution and its system of CHECKS AND BALANCES that would take the place of the Electoral College -- which is a CHECK against excess -- LAWLESS -- democracy from those who pop off about "abolishing the Electoral College" but can't offer anything that would replace it except, apparently, a wide open non-system that would allow a large minority of morons to overrun the rule of law. Eliminating the Electoral College, and putting nothing in its place, would make matters WORSE.
    1
  8.  @lovesalaska1329  So it doesn't matter if the candidate is a criminal promising fascism?
    1
  9.  @AwkwardPain  What RESEARCH have you done on WHY the Founders established the Electoral College, AND their reasoning? You've done NONE. You don't know, You're just another law-illiterate who jumped on the "easy solution" bandwagon. Adult legal reality, in dealing with actual reality is complex. See the Founder's response to "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections -- those were PROHIBITED "direct democracy". "What you are asking for is a giant report. Something that you don't write in a youtube comment section." I frequently post lengthy substantive comments that not only state a premise but also present the law addressing the premise -- so your cop-out -- your inability -- to present any sort of factual "argument" for your position is exactly my point: you don't know why there is an Electoral College; and you have no idea the consequences of abolishing it. "There have been papers written about this, and the USA is the ONLY democracy to use one." Really? Then why do you not cite to any? Why do YOU not take the responsibility to back up YOUR afactual comment with SUBSTANCE? "So unless you feel every other country is lacking democracy, you should start there and see what you find." I said nothing of the find. But you are apparently unaware that not all democracies are the same. A readily-observable difference is the reality in the Scandinavian countries: monarchy -- which the US does not have, democratically-elected parliament, and socialist economies -- which the US does not have. And yet none of them is a tyranny; and they don't have the lunatic beliefs that "freedom" means "freedom from rule of law," an overwhelming amount of guns, and the false belief that there is a "right of the people" to destroy the Constitution -- the rule of law. In short: not all democracies are the same. I have an education in law, and constitutions -- including world (see above re. Scandinavian countries for an example) -- have been my focus for more than 30 years. Now, either put up your understanding, based on actually doing the research, of WHY the Founders established the Electoral College -- not, it was not "racism" -- as part of the hierarchy of law with a single supreme Federal gov't -- UNION of the disparate now-50 states; and why the Electoral College can be dispensed with without consequences, without repercussions. Either that, or sit down and STFU with your law-illiterate PROPAGANDA against that about which you have no interest in informing yourself. We are in an era where there are broad ongoing dangerous attacks on checks and balances -- see January 6th as a vivid example; listen to Trump's intents -- and you want to eliminate a central CHECK AGAINST those attacks. Stupidity is your profession. We don't give ground to criminality. Yes: youtube is also a place where substantive comments can be posted. But those who know nothing are limited to agglutinations of one-liners, none of which have any basis in reason or established legal history and law.
    1
  10.  @martinconnelly1473  I'll ask AGAIN: WHY have you NOT DONE THE RESEARCH on WHY the Founders established the Electoral College? -- and no, it was not to "control the slaves". Is that perhaps because you have no _foundation in law_, don't know either where to find that information, and don't know anything of the historical context? Analogously: where are the origins for the separation of "religion" and gov't? AND: "You tell me it's the Constitution/Well, we'd all love to see the PLAN." -- "Revolution," "The Beatles" (John Lennon). "Ninety-nice per cent of the information on the Internet is garbage." -- Abraham Lincoln. You are not qualified in law, and yet you are attacking a Constitutional fundamental -- along with the far-right fascists. And just within the last two days I heard on of you young people -- who have no idea -- complain that the Constitution is "too hard to change". "Too hard" ALSO for those who want to repeal all the Amendments except the first 10. You are so focused on your own shit, your own fantasy, that you are oblivious of the alternative views of others who want to UNDO -- DESTROY -- the Constitution. Did you MISS what January 6th was about!? When Trump, as example, is given "breaks" in court that no one else would get, that is the law BACKING DOWN to his attacks on it. And YOU TOO attack a Constitutional fundamental. Tell us who is benefitted by attacks on the rule of law by the LAW-ILLITERATE!
    1
  11.  @richard3793  They are LOUDER -- MTG can't seem to shut up, and always a loudest, and her constituents are neanderthals who support her because they are as ineffective in their own lives. The problem is that the louder they are, the more voters here them and are repelled.
    1