Today’s visit to the gym was a bit more interesting than others. In between the warm-up and personal training for “leg day,” the opportunity arose to discuss the happenings in the united States since the election. What was gathered from the discussion is leftist, Democrat supporters do not really want the government to be a republic as established by the Constitution, nor do they want it to be a democracy (mob rule). It became obvious these individuals are totally happy with an oligarchy.
One might ask how a conclusion could be drawn in this manner after just one discussion. Over the past few months, these same gentlemen sit at the same small table in the social area of the gym talking politics. This happens daily during the morning hours Monday through Friday. Being that I frequent the gym daily, the discussions have been heard over an extended period. Today, I joined the conversation for the first time, which was not well received since I brought a constitutional viewpoint to the discussion.
What tipped my involvement was two of the gentlemen claiming their vote did not count since all of the State’s electoral votes went to the candidate that received the majority popular vote. The first thing I asked these gentlemen was, “So, if you disagree with the way the electoral votes are distributed, did you voice that discontent during the last two presidential elections?” Both gentlemen were newcomers to the State and voted in this State for the first time. Of course, the deer in the headlight look was quite obvious. Clarifying further, both individuals voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections in States where the total electoral votes went to the candidate who received the majority popular vote. I changed the question a bit to ask, “Were you satisfied in your previous state with how the electoral votes were awarded?” Naturally, the answer was yes. Their chosen candidate had won the majority vote thereby winning all electoral votes for that State, which they had no issue. Turning another question toward them, I asked, “In your previous State, did the votes of individuals count who voted Republican despite the awarding of electoral votes?” The answer was yes. When I pointed out their hypocrisy, I received the comment, “We just can’t talk to you about anything.” Upon asking why, I received a wave of the hand.
The next topic to receive scrutiny was one of the gentleman stated the electoral college should be eliminated and president and vice-president chosen by popular vote. I asked, “So, you are for a Democratic process?” The answer, “Oh no, this country shouldn’t be a democracy. It’s just the election of the president and vice-president should be by majority popular vote.” When I explained that a democracy is basically a “mob rule” where the majority decide everything, the deer in the headlight look returned. I explained the united States was established by the Constitution as a republic, going into detail what a republic is, the function of government in a republic, and the purpose of electoral college in a republic versus “popular vote” and contrasting that with a democracy. One would have thought I was speaking Greek. I asked if they understood exactly how the electoral college worked and why the citizens voting devolved into nothing more than a high school popularity contest. Again, the response received was, “No one can talk to you about this.”
From here the conversation turned to the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade where these gentlemen declared that Trump would rid the “nation” of the law of the land — abortion. I asked these gentlemen where it was contained in the Constitution that courts could enact law. They claimed the court rendered a decision that became the law of the land. When pointing out that Article I of the Constitution invested legislative powers only to Congress and Supreme Court decisions were not law, I was told I didn’t know what I was talking about. So, I rephrased the question a bit to ask, “Since the Supreme Court decided against Obama on amnesty and his immigration policy, then their ruling would be the law of the land, right?” At this point, the answer from these gentlemen again exposed their hypocrisy. While declaring the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade the “law of the land,” these gentlemen stated the Supreme Court cannot make law regarding the president’s activities. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and lack of understanding of the Constitution received the same chastisement as the two previous topics — No one can talk to you.
The gentlemen began discussing their vote for Hillary Clinton as the better choice over the “rogue” Trump “who will bring this nation to destruction.” When pointing out that Hillary Clinton broke the law regarding classified information handling, the answer was “it’s alleged; we love that word alleged.” When pointing out that the FBI found her in violation of the law and the Justice Department refused to prosecute does not equate to innocence and still makes one a criminal, it was met with vehement denial as to the FBI investigative findings. Again, it was pointed out to the men that one can rob a convenience store, not be caught, and be considered a criminal by virtually breaking the law. When these gentlemen were asked if Richard Nixon was a criminal, the answer was yes. I pointed out that Nixon was never charged with a crime and was pardoned by Gerald Ford. No need to mention the response received since it followed the same pattern.
Before meeting the personal trainer, I asked these gentlemen one final question; “Why are you finding it difficult to talk with me about this when I am basically relaying to you what is contained in the Constitution, which is the founding document of our republic and the law of the land?” At that point, I was told I should not interject into any conversations and go about my business.
The code these gentlemen were speaking amounted to being unable to intelligently back up their position using the Constitution for the united States of America. Instead, their position was based on whim, opinion that changes over time, and party platform. In essence, these gentlemen have no clue what type of government they want much less what type of government the united States has. What these gentlemen basically supported was an oligarchy by either the black robed nine or the Democratic party.
The concept of a republic is lost on these individuals as is the rule of law and what the Constitution does — prohibits government from infringing on individual, God-given unalienable rights and micromanaging issues the States and people are perfectly capable of managing. These gentlemen were accepting of the riots, protesting, violence, vandalism and looting of other people’s property since it wasn’t their property being affected. This shows this is typical of the leftist, socialist, communist, progressive, Democrat thinking process. According to these individuals, “Oligarchy Rule; The republic be damned.”