You said — And if the voters are ignored? If the courts are ignored?
—
Well, again..., talking specifically about the particular issue that brings out the kind of *rhetoric* that this article was talking about (and which I mentioned “experience” with here on Free Republic) — with the courts and the birth certificate issue (and that’s the one where you get all the “leftist-style-talk” that the article is talking about) — this issue was not something in which the voters got ignored.
Basically the voters got *outvoted* on the issue, which is why Obama won by about 10 million more votes than we had. That’s not getting ignored, but rather, that’s getting “outvoted”...
And in regards to the courts (and again on the issue that produces this kind of rhetoric that the article is talking about) — the courts did not ignore the issue — the issue was simply *never brought up*. The issue was other issues, other than the showing of a birth certificate.
So, in this particular instance, I can’t say that the voters were ignored and neither were the courts ignored. It simply wasn’t a decision that we wanted...
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — There have been some propositions in CA thrown out that were passed by voters.
—
I’m sure that’s true, and just as true as there are propositions that get affirmed, too — just like the one about homosexuals and marriage... It goes both ways... The courts end up goring both sides, it seems.
BUT, in the end of all that is said and done, regarding courts and voting and so on — it all comes down to the mass of the public. If the “public” is not *in line* with what these views are (or what you want) — we’re simply not going to win. So, the key here is the *public* and not the courts or the politicians or the laws. It comes right down to the ordinary citizen, himself — and in that you have to have the “mass of the public” with you — or one will lose...
>>> “BUT, in the end of all that is said and done, regarding courts and voting and so on — it all comes down to the mass of the public. If the “public” is not *in line* with what these views are (or what you want) — we’re simply not going to win. So, the key here is the *public* and not the courts or the politicians or the laws. It comes right down to the ordinary citizen, himself — and in that you have to have the “mass of the public” with you — or one will lose...”
And thus is the reason for this...
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
That is what you do when the divide becomes too wide...
“BUT, in the end of all that is said and done, regarding courts and voting and so on — it all comes down to the mass of the public. If the “public” is not *in line* with what these views are (or what you want) — we’re simply not going to win. So, the key here is the *public* and not the courts or the politicians or the laws. It comes right down to the ordinary citizen, himself — and in that you have to have the “mass of the public” with you — or one will lose...”
And Conservatives don’t seem to be particularly competent at persuading the mass of the public to the conservative view.