You Dumb Motherfuckers, By James Madison

[Norm dePlume]

You Dumb Motherfuckers, By James Madison
Sep 20, 2016

Hey there shitheads. Remember me? Yeah, it’s James fucking Madison. Third Secretary of State? Supervisor of the Louisiana Purchase? Fourth President of the United States of America? That guy. How’s it going?

What’s that? You’re scared? You’re worried you might elect as the next President a misogynistic turkey leg that somehow escaped the state fair, fell into a bale of hay, and inexplicably managed to bankrupt six companies? Oh dear, that sounds stressful. And nobody saw it coming? Wow, that sucks. I mean, Jesus Christ, how did nobody consider that one day, some insane demagogue might incite a populist rebellion and threaten to shit on our country? How did no one think to create some kind of safeguard?

OH WAIT. I DID. IN FUCKING 1787.

Remember that Constitution you guys all say you loooove so much? Yeah, I wrote that shit. All of it. Even though for some reason you assholes keep thinking it was Jefferson. And because I’m way smarter than all of you, I wrote in a little something I call the Electoral College.

ARTICLE II SECTION 1, NIMRODS. Maybe if you had paid attention in civics class instead of fantasizing about having seven seconds in heaven with Joey Leibowitz during free period you would know about it. But here, let me break it down for you.

As this election cycle has clearly shown, you are all fucking morons. And that’s the problem with republics:, they let everybody vote for elected officials. Even the idiots, which, as we’ve established, is most of you. So, I figured that instead of letting you motherfuckers decide who runs the free world, I would let some people who aren’t quite as goddamned stupid make the actual decisions. Yeah sure, you all get to go to your cute little polling places and cast your adorable fucking ballots, but the actual decision would be made by people called electors who actually, you know, have some basic understanding of the abilities a president needs instead of making decisions based on the fact that their daddies didn’t love them enough and now they feel the need to take out their loneliness and anger on Mexican immigrants. Or whatever.

Now, for the most part, the electors would do whatever voters said. I mean, as stupid as you all are, you would normally manage to at least pick someone whose skin doesn’t look like a burnt creamsicle.

BUT.

BUT.

FUCKING BUT.

If you fucktards DID elect somebody with an inferiority complex as big as his hands are tiny, those electors could override you. HOLY SHIT. What a concept. And now I bet you’re all thinking, “Gee thanks, Jim. Looks like you saved our asses again. How’d you like an ice cold beer and a blowjob?”

But NOOOOO, you assholes wanted more DEMOCRACY. So most states decided to pass laws that bind the electors so that no matter what decision you impotent mouth-breathers make, they have to follow it.

So just remember in November that if you numbskulls decide to elect a trench coat of 12 xenophobic raccoons masquerading as a person, I tried my fucking best to stop it. You assholes only have yourselves to blame.

—A. Chase

[80zephyr]

Oh joy, then the political machine in Washington could disregard us and elect....yet another career politician.

Careful what you wish for, Norm.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

So much for caring what the founding fathers intended.

[80zephyr]

So much for caring what the founding fathers intended.

Yeah. Using their "qualified" standard, Obama would never had set foot in the White House either.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

Hamilton and Madison opposed the idea of bound electors. Electors were meant to deliberate and decide, not just carry the result of the popular vote. The people at the constitutional convention assumed the electors would be selected district by district and that voters would know the electors better than they knew the presidential candidates.

Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.
Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent that they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward", Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Yeah. Using their "qualified" standard, Obama would never had set foot in the White House either.

Oh, so we only care what the founders intended when they agree with you.

[Newman]

So much for caring what the founding fathers intended.

Apparently the Founding Fathers intended that saying fuck, fuck, fucktards, assholes, and other assorted invectives makes a winning argument. Fucking assholes don't know shit from fucking shinola, turdheads.

The Fucking Founders sound more like a shit for brains adolescent. Fuck this shit.

[Michele]

Apparently the Founding Fathers intended that saying fuck, fuck, fucktards, assholes, and other assorted invectives makes a winning argument. Fucking assholes don't know shit from fucking shinola, turdheads.

The Fucking Founders sound more like a shit for brains adolescent. Fuck this shit.

A foul-mouthed, egotistical frat boy obsessed with sexualizing any subject while trying to convince those around him how clever and smart he is? I think A. Chase could be a poster here.

[80zephyr]

Oh, so we only care what the founders intended when they agree with you.

Not what I said. If Norm wanted what he said, Obama wouldn't have been president either.

Mark

[Tom Servo]

Not what I said. If Norm wanted what he said, Obama wouldn't have been president either.

Mark

You say this like it bolsters your point or something. I personally think he and W were both under-qualified, if not outright unqualified in the way Trump is.

So… The system has failed us 5 times in a row now. Where's the revolution? Coming up, right after the latest Dancing With The Stars, probably.

[80zephyr]

You say this like it bolsters your point or something. I personally think he and W were both under-qualified, if not outright unqualified in the way Trump is.

So… The system has failed us 5 times in a row now. Where's the revolution? Coming up, right after the latest Dancing With The Stars, probably.

If a former governor isn't qualified, I guess no one is.

Mark

[Newman]

You say this like it bolsters your point or something. I personally think he and W were both under-qualified, if not outright unqualified in the way Trump is.

So… The system has failed us 5 times in a row now. Where's the revolution? Coming up, right after the latest Dancing With The Stars, probably.

I seem to be defending Trump a lot here, but I can't agree that you have to be a political insider to be "qualified."

But for fun I'll concede the point. George Bush was elected twice to the governorship of Texas (pop. 28 mill), the second time by a 69% landslide. How exactly is he "under-qualified"?

Do you consider Howard Dean "under-qualified"? How about Eisenhower?

[Newman]

And that’s the problem with republics:, they let everybody vote for elected officials. Even the idiots, which, as we’ve established, is most of you. [A. Chase]

This might be the right place to note that Hillary won the idiot vote.

[Michele]

You say this like it bolsters your point or something. I personally think he and W were both under-qualified, if not outright unqualified in the way Trump is.

So… The system has failed us 5 times in a row now. Where's the revolution? Coming up, right after the latest Dancing With The Stars, probably.

Our Revolution...there's probably a local one in a city near anyone.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I seem to be defending Trump a lot here, but I can't agree that you have to be a political insider to be "qualified."

But for fun I'll concede the point. George Bush was elected twice to the governorship of Texas (pop. 28 mill), the second time by a 69% landslide. How exactly is he "under-qualified"?

Do you consider Howard Dean "under-qualified"? How about Eisenhower?

Eisenhower for sure. Somehow, military leadership doesn't translate all that well to political leadership, although Eisenhower was by no means the worst example. A successful governorship is no doubt helpful. As with teaching, some real-world experience is critical - in the case of not just Presidential candidates but candidates for Congress, I'd like to see more people who have had to live on their own paycheck. Probably the most important single qualification for President is really and truly believing that you don't know jack shit about what the office requires, and a willingness to put in a lot of hard work learning it.