In church recently, our minister used a familiar phrase that I hadn’t heard in years. From the Preamble of the United States Constitution, he used the phrase “insure domestic tranquility.” It came so unexpectedly and was so far back in the recesses of what’s left of my memory, the result was as though someone had grabbed and shaken me.

Given the possibility that anyone needs a reminder, here it is:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure the domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

When was the last time you recited the Preamble — if ever? Back in the ’50s most children knew it by junior high school. I suspect that most Americans, like myself, haven’t thought about it in ages.

The seed planted, I considered some perceived causes for the reduction of our national tranquility. Those who wish to change, ignore or circumvent the U.S. Constitution jumped to the top of the list. Primary among these are those who desire to meddle with the Second Amendment and the Electoral College. With upcoming elections in the news, let’s concentrate on the Electoral College.

First, as background, let’s look at actual election results. Beginning with 1932, there have been 22 presidential elections — Democrats winning 12 and Republicans 10. Does that sound like the Electoral College works against Democrats? Yet it’s Democrats who wish to eliminate or circumvent it. Perhaps, in their world, they feel that they deserve more.

As for actual results, let’s review how Democrats fared in the electoral voting. These are true numbers. In 1932, FDR took 88 percent, in ’36 he took 98 percent, in ’40 he won 84 percent and in ’44 he got 81 percent. Note that he won four consecutive terms. Moving on, Truman won in ’48 with 57 percent. Twenty straight years with two Democrats occupying the White House. In 1960, JFK arrived with 56 percent of the Electoral College followed by LBJ in ’64, who garnered 90 percent. The next Democrat was Jimmy Carter in ’76, who managed 55 percent of the college. In 1992, Clinton won with 68 percent. He returned in ’96 winning 70 percent. After two terms of Bush 43, Obama emerged. He got 67 percent of the college in 2008, and 61 percent in ’12.

In recent years, Democrats’ winning percentages haven’t been that impressive. The only Democrat to receive over 80 percent since FDR in 1944 was LBJ in ’64. Like them or not, both were dynamic people. Their percentages reflected this attribute.

None of the above results indicate that the college is unfair. To objective people who pay attention, the Electoral College concept is brilliant. Democrats have prospered under it, but have not dominated — sounds fair to me. The college hasn’t changed, but the candidates and their supporters have.

The problem as I see it is not the Electoral College, but the candidates that the Democrats put forward. In support of that opinion, I offer you the gang of current candidates. Not one with the star quality of JFK or even Obama. Don’t forget Al Gore and John Kerry — perceived by many as a couple of schlubs.

Additionally, there are those who want to circumvent the Electoral College by assigning a state’s electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote. This from Democrats who say requiring voter ID will disenfranchise millions of voters. Think about this. Millions of Americans (of every stripe) will be disenfranchised if Electoral College votes are assigned based upon results from the West Coast, the Northeast and upper Midwest. Each state’s electoral votes should reflect the wishes of its voters. Otherwise, disenfranchisement of hundreds of millions of people will inevitably result. This plan destroys diversity that Democrats claim to champion.

In closing, an unrelated recent occurrence disturbed my domestic tranquility. Congressman Jamie Raskin is supporting the D.C. statehood movement. He stated that we “are the only nation on Earth” whose citizens of the nation’s capital don’t vote on national matters. Ouch, Raskin! You missed something. We “are the only nation on Earth” that does a lot of things. We were first to send the British home. Our ancestors formed a democratic republic in a world of monarchies. They made common people more equal than they had ever been. This could go on and on, but I bet even Raskin (like it or not) gets it. This country was formed, intentionally, to differ from the world of that time. Now, people like him want us to be more like the rest of the world. That is not the way this country was designed — not what made us what we are. We began uniquely, we’ve done it our way and in the final analysis we’ve become a great nation. I won’t speak for others, but I’ve always been proud of my country.

If we wanted to be like Europe, we’d have stayed there or at least invited the British to stay. We did neither.

Rick Blatchford writes from Mount Airy. Contact him at rpblatch4d@comcast.net.

(119) comments

FCPS-Principal

Read and re-read the last paragraph. It is an utter deflection. A complete refusal to address the injustice of DC not having voting congressional representatives as stated in the beginning of the paragraph. None of the subsequent sentences address that. They just ramble on and on about unrelated thoughts.

FCPS-Principal

If many people, rational people that is, consider Gore and Kerry to be "schlubs" as Rick writes, then what they think of the current so-called president must be utterly unprintable.

des21

All you singing the praise of Europe- here's a wake up: Try immigrating there without marrying a European citizen. Good luck to you. You think America is xenophobic and racist? Heck, you could never have it so good, those nimrods think that the French are a different race than the Germans! Nice place to visit- it's like adult Disneyland, good food and alcohol, porn on tv (if you're into that) but please, even if I could, don't make me live there. I'd rather decide how my money is spent, not have some bureaucrat in the capital (which one? your "nations", Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg? You're paying taxes to all and they all make decisions for you) do it for me. And talk about fundamentally non-democratic- the European Commission ladies and gentlemen- let's give that oligarchy a hand- it's these types of things that get populists elected geniuses. Trump is not an outlier, he is the norm across the western world. Sorry. If you are so inept and feeble minded you need your betters to make significant life choices for you I'm sorry for you. Don't impose that on the rest of us.What you are seeing in Europe and here at home is a reaction against that nonsense. I welcome it, as should any democrat.

awteam2000

Rick, a general popular election would reflect more today the values in the first words of the ‘Preamble’ “We the People” rather than “We the States”, a group of predominantly wealthy plantation owners and businessmen. The ‘people’ as a ‘state’ (the particular condition) has changed dramatically since then.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Is the Constitution a contract between the Government and individual States or a contract between the Government and the individual?

rikkitikkitavvi

I say individual due to the Amendments.

jsklinelga

Rick,

Comments like you would suppose. Some were interesting Many outlandish. Concerning other countries get this. Europe moved ahead of the US in the 20th Century??? If it was not for the United States the EU would not exist. Germany would ,most likely be Russian along with a number of now free European Countries. It is amazing how far some people will stretch reality to try to make America look bad.

And people saying how educated on government kids are today and then try to defend a majority vote for President. First it is a totally ridiculous idea. It will never happen. What 3/4's of States would support the change? Ridiculous.

And no concept of what a Republic is compared to a Democratic majority. Individual States with shared power compared to a collective whole??? Why have a Senate. Using their stunted perception of our Republic that is grossly unfair. Montana has the same number as California.? Horribly, horribly unfair, right.

But the real kicker is trying to deny a clear majority of Americans favored Trump's acquittal takes the cake. We have seen how skewed polls can be and I guess you could find polls that show the majority favored removal but that is not supported by a real average of polls (real clear politics) And the most recent comment insults your intelligence and the FNP's . Go figure.

awteam2000

Maybe, arguably a split on acquittal at best, but a clear majority of people believe Trump abused power and obstructed Congress. Also, The population density of Montana is 7 people per square mile (54th out of 56) states and territories while California is the 3rd largest state by area, with a population density of 251 people per square mile.

It’s about “ We the People of the United States” not “We the States of the United States”

https://www.axios.com/poll-trump-abused-power-obstructed-congress-b672d043-504d-4056-8ab1-497e4d1fe22a.html

jsklinelga

aw

I"It’s about “ We the People of the United States” not “We the States of the United States” That makes almost less sense then the other comment posted at the same time. What you must be advocating is to eliminate States.

public-redux

Are you really ignorant of the National Popular Vote Compact? Given your views on the sovereignty of states,I assume you support the constitutional authority of state governments to direct their electors to cast votes in accordance with the national popular vote.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

public-redux

BTW, I appreciate your reluctance to respond directly to me. I regard it as an an acknowledgement that you can’t refute my points.

awteam2000

JSK,

States holds legal and administrative jurisdiction within its bounds not over National decisions. Meaning that ‘States’ cannot control movement of persons across state borders, take precedence over national citizenship. The idea of "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" is derived from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution provides that our national elections can changed to be in line with our national values today. The nation has a long history of extending voting rights to more, over state inequities. The process in which it’s done can also be advanced by the national government with 2/3rds of state legislations and 2/3rds of both house of the senate agreeing.

Not very likely till the inevitable happens. Growing states like Texas, Florida and Georgia flip the scale.

awteam2000

My bad 🤗. I miss-spoke... 2/3rds in Congress and 3/4th of the states are needed to ratify an amend to the Constitution! Not likely in my life time. So what’s the point of this letter?

des21

It could be Pub, that jsk just finds you insufferable. I know I do that with some here (not with you.) Just saying.........

public-redux

Des, That’s possible but then one would naturally ask why.

public-redux

Reposting my text because the long link may render some of it unreadable on some devices:

You are incorrect about a “clear majority” favoring acquit all. Indeed, not a majority at all. The RCP link is below. The average was 48.1% favoring acquittal and 47.1% favoring conviction. Of the 11 polls in the average, 3 had a majority for acquittal 52%, 51%, and 51% and 8 did not. Six of the 11 had a majority or plurality for conviction; 5 for conviction.

Were you lying or mistaken?

public-redux

“ What 3/4's of States would support the change?”

It isn’t necessary for 75% of the states to support it. Rick addressed that in the column.

public-redux

You are incorrect about a “clear majority” favoring acquit all. Indeed, not a majority at all. The RCP link is below. The average was 48.1% favoring acquittal and 47.1% favoring conviction. Of the 11 polls in the average, 3 had a majority for acquittal 52%, 51%, and 51% and 8 did not. Six of the 11 had a majority or plurality for conviction; 5 for conviction.

Were you lying or mistaken?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

MRS M

Rick (and the editors of the FNP) shoulda saved this "column" for April Fools' Day. Seriously, folks? The bar at this paper is now being set so low, our Labrador could eke out a more insightful, intellectually honest, and interesting column than what poses for the "conservative/Republican" point of view here. I'm seriously going to have to stop my subscription, if this unrelenting drivel doesn't cease. (Now, how do I get on FaceBook?)

threecents

www.facebook.com [smile]

rikkitikkitavvi

MM Byebyebye[beam]

des21

Please do.

llrowse

Rick, FCPS curriculum introduces, and requires students at various grade levels to learn about the Constitution, not in entirety, but focusing on relevant sections. You would be amazed how many FCPS students can sing (recite) the Preamble thanks to School House Rock. As well, 8th grade students start bracing themselves for the infamous, required Government class. Students are being taught, and know more than you realize. Give “School House Rock” a listen. It can be found on YouTube.

awteam2000

WORD![thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

threecents

Yah, but do they have to walk 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways?

llrowse

In their bare feet!

threecents

It pains me to imagine how much better the world would be if Bush Jr lost to Gore.

des21

SMH, delusional.

threecents

News flash: The constitution is not a holy document and is not God's words. It is no coincidence that Rick started thinking about this in church. The constitution is imperfect, not crystal clear, and it was meant to be revised.

Obadiah Plainsmen

It’s been revised 27 times and there is nothing stopping it from the 28th revision. The Constitution even explains how to do it. So what is the issue?

threecents

That's my point.

public-redux

God’s words have been revised many times more than 27. It isn’t a problem at all.

Obadiah Plainsmen

What does God’s word have anything to do with the constitution? The preamble starts with “we the people” . It’s the people that insures domestic tranquillity . If the people want to end civility then the people are free to do so. If the people want to undo justice then they are free do to so. The Constitution is only as good as the trust that we the people have in it.

threecents

OP, Sorry that was not clear. I meant that it is flawed and not a holy document brought down from Moses that some make it out to be.

public-redux

“ What does God’s word have anything to do with the constitution?“

Absolutely nothing. My comment was about the numerous revisions to gods’ words.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Ok so your comment was useless to the conversation.

public-redux

You don’t think flawed documents should be revised? How odd.

phydeaux994

The Electoral College in modern times has only superseded the popular vote two times, in each case to Elect the two worst Presidents in American History. In Colonial times it worked as intended, along with the 3/5 Compromise it allowed the 7 Southern “slave” States to have their hundreds of thousands of slaves to be used as votes in the Electoral College to Elect the President of the United States who were Virginians for 32 of the first 36 Presidents of our Nation. After slavery was abolished the 3/5 Compromise was removed from the Constitution but not the Electoral College because the Conservatives thought it would still give them an advantage in the General Election which has proved to be true the two times mentioned and to the detriment of the Nation. That is why the Conservatives want to keep that advantage in their pockets. Legal cheating, so to speak.

threecents

P994[thumbup]

Boyce Rensberger

[thumbup]

gabrielshorn2013

Nonsense phy. The electoral college was established by the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. There was still slavery in the north until 1804, fifteen years after adoption. The EC was established through the Connecticut Compromise as a concession to small states, who otherwise would not have joined the Union. I have provided you with the information multiple times. Have you read it?

phydeaux994

gab, there were only 13 States when the Constitution was ratified, all small. Who were the small States you mention? If Madison and Hamilton had not made the concession to the 7 “slave” States they would not have had the 9 States needed to ratify the Constitution to have it adopted. I have provided you with many, many articles that prove that to be true including papers from Madison and Hamilton that state that fact. Have you read THEM? Here they are AGAIN!!!???

https://columbiaandslavery.columbia.edu/content/ambition-bondage-inquiry-alexander-hamilton-and-slavery

https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

The concession gab, was allowing slaves to count for ANYTHING toward election of the President of the United States. They couldn’t be used as direct votes, only as population of the State. So Madison contrived a voting system, the Electoral College, so that the population of the State could be used to determine votes for President and Veep, the number of Representatives in the House, and Federal Funding for the State. Virginia had almost 300,000 slaves!! Virginians were elected President four of the first five Presidents! Virginians were President for 32 of the first 36 years of the Country! Without the EC and 3/5 Compromise, Virginia or any other Southern State would never have elected a President. Without the EC and the 3/5 Compromise the Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified at all.

rikkitikkitavvi

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Have at it phydoh

DickD

Rick, this probably never occurred to you. But the reason FDR was POTUS for an election of 20 years was because of Hoover. The Great Depression and WWII. Truman was POTUS because of FDR's death and was reelected once.

As far as gun rights the Constitution does not guarantee you the right of automatic or semi automatic weapons. Nor does it say sales will not be restricted.

The Electoral College is a hold over from slavery, a compromise that has outlived it's original intent. Now we need to make sure everyone'svote is equal.

gabrielshorn2013

No dick, see my response to phy above.

DickD

Yes, Gabe you don't need or does the Constitution state you need a automatic or semi automatic weapon. You just refuse to accept reality.

gabrielshorn2013

Lol dick. I wasn't referring to the 2A at all, but since you brought it up, your argument is always weak on this topic. There were no automatic or semiautomatic firearms at the adoption of the Bill of Rights. There were also no cartridges or breech loaded firearms,

just flintlocks. The 2A doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear flintlocks, it says firearms. It's also the Bill of Rights, not likes or wants. There were also no computers or internet, so why are you reading this on your phone? You got a horse and buggy parked at your house? Technology marches on. Have you figured out the difference between a semiautomatic and automatic firearm yet" All a semi-auto does is reload for you, nothing else. Did you know that a double-action revolver does the same thing? After firing, the cylinder revolves to line up another cartridge.

rikkitikkitavvi

Who said anything about need Dick? You sir are living in a alternative reality.

public-redux

There were also cannons, some of which were personally owned and therefore covered by the 2A.

threecents

Yes, the EC has clearly outlived its use. One equal vote per citizen is the only way to have a fair general election. Not sure how anyone can reasonably argue against that today.

gabrielshorn2013

It's very easy three. Despite the common misconception, we do not have a popular vote for the Chief Executive. We have fifty individual state elections of electors, who then vote for the Executive. Look up the Connecticut Compromise, which was a compromise between the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan. Without which, the smaller states would never have joined the Union.

threecents

Gabe, I think we all learned that in high school, but like Dick and I said, it has outlived its usefulness, and I still don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that it hasn't outlived its usefulness.

gabrielshorn2013

Well, that's your opinion. Doesn't make it true. Since it was a concession to less populated states to entice them to join the Union, can they secede if you are successful in getting rid of the EC? If no, why not. Wouldn't that be breach of contract?

rikkitikkitavvi

How many times have these numbskulls been told about 50 State Not one National on these boards. Stop the insanity. COME ON NOVEMBER!

threecents

Yes, it is my opinion. I even stated that it was my opinion when I wrote it. And your responses have been weak - in my opinion.

threecents

Gabe, And as for the Connecticut Compromise, it was mainly about having 2 senators per state and more 1 person = 1 vote in the House. The EC effect was secondary to that. But that does not even matter now. The point is how should the system be now - now that no state wants to leave the country.

rikkitikkitavvi

So zero, it seems that we all think the others opinion is just a bunch of "white noise" [ohmy]. Where does that leave us[smile].? In your opinion of course. What's next? Please, Do tell. I'm waiting with bated breath. Here's my opinion whether you like it or not: The D'party of today, you're part of that right zero, is living in a dream world bereft of reason, mired in pathological anger, rage and fear. They/you are also in the grip of the insane delusion that their/your values-which are never stated-are vastly superior to those of the rest of the country, even the world. That's my opinion zero. What do you think? Pretty accurate huh?!

rikkitikkitavvi

Not hardly Zero. Have, in your opinion, any of the Amendments "outlived" their use? I say let's not argue. Let the Election decide. Oh wait, We can only let the Election decide if the D'rats win. Right zero? I mean ya'll are still trying to win 2016. That really shows determination. But...

public-redux

Which election decides whether or not an amendment is no longer useful? Please dispense your wisdom.

rikkitikkitavvi

Gee pub I'm so sorry I wasn't clear. If the D'rats had won in 2016 I'm sure they would have went to work on the Constitution. Same thing with the coming election. Does that make it any clearer. If not, please, for your own mental stability ignore my convoluted comment.

phydeaux994

The 3/5 Compromise was removed by the 14th Amendment and it’s companion, the EC, should have gone with it. But the Conservatives thought the EC still was beneficial to them, as it has been to overturn the will of the people two horribly disastrous times.

public-redux

tick, No, it doesn’t make it any clearer but thanks for trying. Your last sentence has some good advice, though.

threecents

Rikki/Jonah Hill, We are all just folks exchanging ideas and opinions here. Enjoy...but maybe with less alcohol.

Boyce Rensberger

Does Blatchford really not understand the argument against the Electoral College? The fairness of it has nothing to do with what he claims --how many times one party or the other wins. It has to do with whether it represents all voters equally.

Twice in recent decades the man elected president *lost* the popular vote. In 2016, as most of us know, about 63 million voted for Trump and about 66 million voted for Clinton. Blatchford calls that fair. He likes the American system in which voters in small states are given more power per person than are voters in large states. That has disturbed the domestic tranquility.

His comparison with Europe depends on another point of historical ignorance. While the United States did leap ahead of Europe in the 18th century, Europe subsequently moved ahead of the United States, especially in the 20th century. Why does Blatchford ignore that?

hayduke2

Simple answer Boyce - he does not understand the concern behind the EC.

Boyce Rensberger

You're probably right. I just didn't feel I should phrase my comment as if I knew what was in his mind.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Rensberger,

Why do you ignore the catalyst that propelled Europe to move ahead of the USA in the 20th century? Let me refresh your memory. 1st, the approximately 500,000 American soldiers who died in WWII making Europe great again. 2nd, the billions and billions of $$$$ spent by American taxpayers rebuilding the cities and infrastructure on the European Continent known as the Marshall plan making Europe great again. 3rd, Without the "British" there would be no America. And today without America there would have been no Europe left to make great again.

Boyce Rensberger

All true. This doesn't refute, as you seem to agree, that Europe *has* moved ahead of the United States.

Obadiah Plainsmen

It’s all in how one defines moved ahead. Still more Europeans want to move to America, than Americans wanting to move to Europe. Why is that?

awteam2000

Because of diversity! America’s strength.

matts853

Boyce, let Obadiah know it’s because of language barriers. Lots of Europeans know English, only some Americans do. 😉

Boyce Rensberger

Obadiah, I'd like to know the source of your claim that more Europeans *want* to immigrate to the U.S. than the reverse. Pew shows more Europeans living in the U.S. than vice-versa, but I couldn't find a way to separate those who are here for home-country business from those who make a permanent move.

Obadiah Plainsmen

https://mises.org/wire/3-times-many-europeans-move-us-other-way-around.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx

Today Europeans move here for the same reason they did 100, 200, 300 , 400 years ago, opportunity and freedom. Once the scourge of slavery was dealt with although political parties still practice a form of slavery, the Migrant population exploded. Remember FDR four freedom speech, the world is jealous or envious of our constitution and want to enjoy in its freedoms.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Rensberger,

One more thing. Tell matts that I agree, the American public education system has failed miserably in educating students in foreign languages.

Boyce Rensberger

Obadiah, European countries have the freedoms we have. And they also have freedom from worries about paying for higher education and health care. Those freedoms lead to a lot more upward economic mobility than Americans have. (Data upon request.) Freedom to be entrepreneurial, start businesses, develop artistic or literary skills, etc. There is an excellent book on this called The Nordic Theory of Love by Anu Partanen, a Finnish journalist who moved to the U.S. and was shocked at how backward things are here. You should read it.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Yes she thought America was so backwards she married an American became a citizen and stayed in America. Finland might be a happy place to live and provide excellent health care , however she would rather stay and live in America. Bernie even thinks highly of her and Finland. Happy, Happy,Happy. Why aren’t Americans immigrating in masses for their healthcare? Why are you staying in America?

Remember FDR four freedoms Speech? One of those freedoms was “freedom from want”. Freedom means if you want free healthcare, you are free to go to a Country to that provides it.

rikkitikkitavvi

You are in control of your own destiny, but not mine. If you have a group large enough, you become a powerhouse and are able to inflict YOUR will on those around you. This is why our Founding Fathers declared us a Republic NOT a Democracy. Democracy is "Mob Rule". The tyranny of that majority is a truism. It is only kept in check by diversified power, like a Republic.

awteam2000

Texas, Florida and Georgia are on the verge of becoming at least purple states. If they go blue by narrow margins - guaranteeing a national electorate swing to the ‘left’, I bet it will be a complete rethink by the ‘right’ into whether the electoral college really Is representative of the voters.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/13/will-texas-house-turn-blue-after-2020-elections/

DickD

Good way to think about it, aw.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Concerning voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia aka taxation without representation. In 1977 a proposed constitutional amendment passed by Congress that would have granted the District of Columbia congressional voting rep­resentation "as if it were a state." This amend­ment, however, was not ratified in the seven-year period established by Congress.

However the best proposal was submitted in 1964 by Attorney General RFK. A retrocession of most of the city back to Maryland. It would then be known as Douglas County( named after Frederick Douglas). The Mayor (Bowser) would become the CE and all would have taxation with representation, problem solved Mr. Raskin.

gary4books

Makes Sense to me - Columbia County, Maryland.

threecents

OP[thumbup]

matts853

This guy is unbelievable. Let’s break this down:

He laments that there’s no domestic tranquility anymore, but instead of taking a non-partisan approach to re-tranquilize us, he blames it all on the Democrats. Sweet.

He gets all wistful about the constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that our current president has been impeached for violating it.

Then he goes star-gazing to find a Democrat candidate wothy of presidents’ past, when the current Republican President possess not a single celestial quality of his party’s own predecessors. To use the cliche: he’s no Ronald Reagan. But I guess Rick considers the following Trump attributes as star qualities: obstruction of justice, extortion of a foreign leader for political gain, threats on ambassadors, personal attacks and vengence directed at decorated service members, a decaying state department and judiciary, interference in justice department investigations, conducting the national anthem, a presidential counter culture of inane tweets on a daily basis, knee jerk foreign policiy decisions that no senior leaders in our government support or understand, undertaking of a massive “land grab” of property along the border that Mexico is NOT paying for, violating campaign finance rules by buying the silence of a perm star, and his general inability to tell the truths about anything.

Rick sure has a twisted view of tranquility.

jsklinelga

matt853

"our current president has been impeached for violating it." I do not follow the MSM talking points but that statement is a perfect example of why Trump gaines support after the impeachment. Yes the Constitution was trampled on in the process but not by President Trump. That is a crystal clear opinion supported by

a majority of Americans.

Samanthapowers

Clear majority? Back up your words and prove it. More delusion. Await the statistical data.

hayduke2

Too funny jsk. You dump on MSM and say the opinion to support acquittal is supported by a "majority of Americans." That is simply NOT true. Look at the many polls and information available. One recent one shows those results - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ However, your pure tribal response isn't surprising. Keep buying the con man's arguments.

matts853

The polls say your wrong JSK - as usual.

rikkitikkitavvi

Polls? hahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahaha

Samanthapowers

Where is your statistical data to support your blatantly false assertions, jk?

DickD

[thumbup][thumbup]

threecents

In case this is not obvious to anyone: As long as Trump is president, there will not be domestic tranquility.

rikkitikkitavvi

Say when.

matts853

When?

rikkitikkitavvi

Now matty, all you have to do is define the where.

threecents

Rikki, Are you still challenging people to fight? I thought we discussed that. How much alcohol do you have on average in a 24-hr period?

rikkitikkitavvi

Just think what Trump could've gotten done if the Democrats weren't the party of obstruction, collusion, propaganda and outright lies matty. America First !

hayduke2

You mean like the first two years when he had the political capital and a Republican House and Senate??? [lol][lol][lol][lol] Delusional dude!

gary4books

No need to change the College of Electors. But we do want more people to vote in November. A landslide will be fair and decisive. Either way.

awteam2000

[thumbup]

jsklinelga

Mr. Blatchford,

Not so sure your column will beget a tranquility among the local naysayers. My eight grade Math teacher (Math!) at West Frederick made us memorize the Preamble. At the time we thought he was wacky but I have been thankful ever since.

I do not understand why you would try to rationalize the Electoral College. As you said: "To objective people who pay attention, the Electoral College concept is brilliant." To those who oppose the College, to whom you exert effort to explain, are either not so brilliant or somewhat dishonest as they utilize the " excuse for", all to familiar, victim card.. Any honest, reasonably intelligent person knows the United States of America, as we know it< will never eliminate the Electoral College. The operative words "States of America."

But your last point is right on the money. It is similar to kids saying "But Billy or Rashead has one." How often have we heard the rest of the Industrialized Nations." Well the real truth is many of these nations and the society they enjoy would not even BE if it were not for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

marinick1

[thumbup]

gary4books

The USA owes France or its help in the Revolution. France provided the ideals for our rvolution. Now we can at least pay attention to their ideas.

rikkitikkitavvi

Gary, Don't most of the countries in the world owe us in some way, shape or form?

des21

Well said Rick. Now prepare to be lambasted by the usual suspects as you have violated the current Democrat party line (along with the crazy positive economic developments over the past .5 years being all do to Obama (somehow from beyond a curtain he is running he economy) and Trump's wanting the prosecutors to follow the sentencing guidelines for Roger Stone being the new "Saturday Night Massacre!" You can't make this stuff up- well they can.) . Thankfully, sane Americans know better and can see through their nonsense. At least you didn't mention Trump positively, that really gets their veins bulging and spit flecking.[beam]

marinick1

[thumbup]

Samanthapowers

What can you say des. Most reasonable and moral people recognize a feckless coward when they see one. No need to get our veins bulging. The clown is so dumb he is gonna impeach himself again. You are good for a laugh though. Thank you.

rikkitikkitavvi

You can't say much your own self Sammy. You have NO candidate that will get close to WINNING. You're not even worth a good laugh. You are just putrid.

DickD

You really believe the nonsense you state. Dave?

rikkitikkitavvi

Dick, you believe the deluded ramblings you and your sandbox pals regurgitate. So...

threecents

Whoever finds what screw is lose in Des et al. should win a Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Medicine Prize. I wonder if anyone has tried to compare the brains of schizophrenics with the brains of virulent Republicans.

DickD

They have me baffled, three.

rikkitikkitavvi

It's your age Dick. You're losing your marbles. Remember, you didn't have very many to begin with.

matts853

They are very enigmatic to be sure. And gullible.

rikkitikkitavvi

As opposed to Seditious and Demonic?

des21

And evil, don't forget evil![beam] Democrats being run by Cotton Mather.

threecents

Aw Rikki, your words even sound slurred when transcribed. Please cut down on the drinking.[sad]

rikkitikkitavvi

"Evil" in their divisiveness. "Demonic" in their ideals that it's okay to kill babies and sell the parts.

rikkitikkitavvi

And you should call your self Zerosense. I don't have to explain why do I, Zero? It should be self explanatory.

public-redux

You tell him, Dennis!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.