Things not going well for Sen. Mike Lee (R), Utah

[Francisco 2.0 32334]

Take it away, Senator Lee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

Was there a point to that?

[hookemATL 11610]

String him the fuck up.  Sick of these demented fucks.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Was there a point to that?

Maybe he is suffering some hallucinations. Doesn't he have COVID?

I don't know the long game of a senator wanting to argue that we don't have a democracy nor do we want more.  If the goal is peace, prosperity and liberty, I believe that an authoritarian ruler could potentially provide those. Now the problem is that you don't have many options if he fails.

[SimonBolivar 10928]

He must post on message boards...

 

"We're not a democracy but actually a republic hur hur"...

 

Democracy

de·moc·ra·cy- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

 

 

In other words the United States of America is a democracy, but thanks for the 12th grade government class take there senator.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[bad_teammate 13132]

The point was to add support to rampant voter suppression and the purposeful disenfranchisement of black Americans.

Also, he's mad because a black woman was talking.

[immamac 42518]

This will end well for him. 

[wildcat09 29243]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Maybe he is suffering some hallucinations. Doesn't he have COVID?

I don't know the long game of a senator wanting to argue that we don't have a democracy nor do we want more.  If the goal is peace, prosperity and liberty, I believe that an authoritarian ruler could potentially provide those. Now the problem is that you don't have many options if he fails.

An authoritarian ruler cannot provide liberty.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

An authoritarian ruler cannot provide liberty.

depends on your definition of liberty,  Maybe Sen. Lee can help us define it.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

This is an old argument that I first heard when my prof. was discussing the electoral college. 

it’s an interesting facet when you examine the protections the Founding Fathers put in place to protect the government from the people

[SydneyCarton 47877]

16 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Take it away, Senator Lee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho. Lee. Fuck. 

Also, I'm not sure if this fucking dipshit has taken a look at his voting base, but I can assure you that the ideas of liberty, peace, and whatever the ever loving fuck "prospefity" is are 100% objective. 

[wildcat09 29243]

Whatever the founding fathers intended was pretty well mooted by the Civil War amendments. We’re a democracy, albeit one with a poorly designed representative system, and any politician who thinks otherwise should be tarred and feathered at the very least.

[Blotto 23434]

Expecting the average American to mentally parse through the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic, citing the constitution as a reference document is a heavy ask, when the majority have much more important shit going on

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

Edgelord stuff from the junior senator.  Very cool, very legal, and very appropriate to try to make some nuanced point that could sound like authoritarianism during an administration accused of authoritarianism on a medium that is character limited.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6554]

I am guessing the Trump campaign asked him to “fall on his sword” and throw out some crazy crap so we can change the narrative  on todays new stories.  Basically, let’s talk about Mike Lee instead of Kamala winning the debate, Trump refusing to debate, a fly sitting on a pile of shit, etc...

[Bateshorn 9899]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Whatever the founding fathers intended was pretty well mooted by the Civil War amendments. We’re a democracy, albeit one with a poorly designed representative system, and any politician who thinks otherwise should be tarred and feathered at the very least.

This.  The majority of this country fought a war to end minority rule in this country.  We’ve done a piss poor job of following up on their sacrifice, but this “tyranny of the majority” bullshit is right out of the John C. Calhoun states rights/pro slavery playbook. 
 

Fuck these authoritarian shitheaps.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Bateshorn

[jimmyjazz 45557]

It's akin to "did you know Lincoln was a Republican?" and "the Nazis were socialists, the word is right there in their name".  Irrelevant hot takes that may or may not be grounded in truth.

The idea that the United States' form of government is not technically a pure democracy, while true, in no way means all references to "democracy" or "democratic" are off point.  It just means he's a pedantic asshole.

Say, what's his surly handle?

[SimonBolivar 10928]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's akin to "did you know Lincoln was a Republican?" and "the Nazis were socialists, the word is right there in their name".  Irrelevant hot takes that may or may not be grounded in truth.

The idea that the United States' form of government is not technically a pure democracy, while true, in no way means all references to "democracy" or "democratic" are off point.  It just means he's a pedantic asshole.

Say, what's his surly handle?

I'm getting a @workswithseed vibe.

[WBT 20421]

a republic if you can keep it

[yoladu 4067]

16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Expecting the average American to mentally parse through the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic, citing the constitution as a reference document is a heavy ask, when the majority have much more important shit going on

This.. it is more of an "academic" exercise that seems really out of place in the last month of a Presidential Election campaign.

covid-19 is the new "i was drunk".

[Neonmoon 38127]

Twitter is definitely the perfect platform to discuss the nuances between democracy, constitutional republic, and common usage of both terms in society. 

 

[seven 1366]

Does Mike Lee know that if enough people in this country approve it, the constitution can be changed, including removing free speech protections? 

Edited October 8, 2020 by seven

[BrickHorn 18191]

31 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

depends on your definition of liberty

Liberty = allowed to own a shitload of guns and say terrible stuff without fear of some unruly liberal college kids booing me. 

[TwiceHorn 31274]

In a representative democracy, there are always going to be tensions between beneficial majority rule and detrimental mob rule, the latter of which is prevented by the "firewall" of institutions like the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the electoral college.

I guess because "democratic" government was a relatively new thing, the founders were relatively afraid of mob rule, moreso than the modern political scientists and citizenry.

What's truly interesting and ironic is the root fear of mob rule is that the mob would install the corrupt, the incompetent, or the despotic, or some combination thereof.  In our particular case, the institutions that ostensibly guard against mob rule have installed the corrupt, incompetent, and despotic.

[kevwun 15647]

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

[Bateshorn 9899]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a representative democracy, there are always going to be tensions between beneficial majority rule and detrimental mob rule, the latter of which is prevented by the "firewall" of institutions like the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the electoral college.

I guess because "democratic" government was a relatively new thing, the founders were relatively afraid of mob rule, moreso than the modern political scientists and citizenry.

What's truly interesting and ironic is the root fear of mob rule is that the mob would install the corrupt, the incompetent, or the despotic, or some combination thereof.  In our particular case, the institutions that ostensibly guard against mob rule have installed the corrupt, incompetent, and despotic.

The founders installed some of these barriers because as the current ruling class, they wanted to ensure they stayed the ruling class.

[TwiceHorn 31274]

13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The founders installed some of these barriers because as the current ruling class, they wanted to ensure they stayed the ruling class.

No doubt some truth to that.  I'm sure they thought themselves better suited to rule a country than many of their fellow colonists.

The moron problem is eternal.

[bad_teammate 13132]

49 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

Yet another reason we need to stop worshiping the founders.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Someone should ask him if he knows that “liberal” has the same root as “liberty” and means person who believes in liberty- since he is now interested in definitions. 
And that he and his political friends define themselves as the opposite of liberal. 

[Sawbonz 27429]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

The founders never even considered that the Senate would work in concert with a corrupt and despotic President.  They were designed to be the body that prevented the current situation.

They also never considered senators would be chosen by popular vote 

[Bateshorn 9899]

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Bateshorn

[DanRydell 799]

"Well actually we're a Republic, not a democracy" guys might be the most insufferable douchebags in America.

[elfenix 34171]

hot takes from 3rd week of government class in high school

[Bullneck 18987]

He doesn't care:

[Sawbonz 27429]

8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

hot takes from 3rd week of government class in high school

[TwiceHorn 31274]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

Of course they didn't, it was unprecedented.  They approached it conservatively, I'm sure for selfish reasons, but probably also as a matter of prudence.

And by hook or by crook, our representative democracy, flawed as it is and was, stuck around for a while.  Most did not.

[Bateshorn 9899]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

hot takes from 3rd week of government class in high school

It’s the only kinda take I got, baby.  

 

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

3.00 on late fees, actually.  I never could get through Gordon Wood. 

[SameSame 1692]

This an odd way to just say, Hey Iook at me I’m a White Supremacist!

[TwiceHorn 31274]

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

Edited October 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

33 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

He doesn't care:

I wonder. If Mitt had broken completely and early from Trump. Had stuck to his guns consistently on everything, if that would've reduced that red percentage by just a little or if it would've climbed. Mitt, being the other senator and not Trump would give some of the (R) Utah  voters a little cover. I believe both senators are still in their terms this round, so maybe not and maybe the Trumpiness is just baked in.

[hayden_horn 11360]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course they didn't, it was unprecedented.  They approached it conservatively, I'm sure for selfish reasons, but probably also as a matter of prudence.

And by hook or by crook, our representative democracy, flawed as it is and was, stuck around for a while.  Most did not.

i find it so interesting that our founding fathers, so influenced by enlightenment writers were framing a constitution while france was using the same thoughts to slaughter their patrician class. the timeline is so close. i mean, we all think of 1776, but we forget the failed articles of confederation, and that our constitution wasn't a direct result of the revolution, but came much later during a time of upheaval in europe.

[DigDug 1649]

33 minutes ago, SameSame said:

 Hey Iook at me I’m a White Supremacist!

mark that

[wildcat09 29243]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

I get what you're saying, but I can promise you that progressives are pretty damned hesitant about trashing it right now, given that an attempt to start over would almost certainly tear the union apart. It's why our solution is to pass a new VRA and pack the courts so it can't be overturned, rather than call for a constitutional convention.

[TwiceHorn 31274]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I get what you're saying, but I can promise you that progressives are pretty damned hesitant about trashing it right now, given that an attempt to start over would almost certainly tear the union apart. It's why our solution is to pass a new VRA and pack the courts so it can't be overturned, rather than call for a constitutional convention.

I left out the current reality that an attempt to modify the Consitution in the current environment would be disastrous.  I think we all agree on that.  EDIT:  And I find myself wondering if that's a disaster that just needs to happen.

I might as well include you along with Bates on this liberal/conservative disquisition.

Edited October 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

2 hours ago, Bullneck said:

He doesn't care:

Thats from March.  Do you have a recent poll?  Mildly curious.

[softlynow 1783]

46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I left out the current reality that an attempt to modify the Consitution in the current environment would be disastrous.  I think we all agree on that.  EDIT:  And I find myself wondering if that's a disaster that just needs to happen.

I might as well include you along with Bates on this liberal/conservative disquisition.

Fuck no. The end of the Western Empire contributed to the onset of the Dark Ages. The end of the American empire would likely lead to one variation of the post-apocalyptic hellscapes we used to pack into theaters to see. Or worse, ou could cease to suck.

As bad as we think it is, it could always be worse. You pointed out that folks are asking conservatism means anymore, well it should at the very least opposition to the "burn it all down" people. If conservatism no longer stands, at the very least, for preservation of the union, then we truly are lost. 

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because people are always asking what the fuck a conservative is anymore (it's a valid question), let me point out Bates' and my back and forth here.

I'm sure Bates would confess to being a "progressive" liberal, or of the more lefty end of things.  I confess to being a confused conservative.

But I think the approach to "reverence" to the founding fathers encapsulates the differences.

Bates clearly thinks the Constitution is outmoded, and probably needs to be redone, in an ideal world.  Part of that is cynicism as to the motives of the founding fathers.

I, on the other hand, while agreeing that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing.  And, although the founders were not operating in a complicated, modern world, I do think some of the things they recognized were prescient and still applicable today (e.g. that unchecked democracy or "mobocracy" can lead to very bad results).

Our respective positions kind of epitomize the fundamental differences between "liberals" and "conservatives," when you get rid of the partisan political bullshit.

But Bates and I go back and forth respectfully, and maybe somewhere between our positions, on which I imagine we would be willing to compromise if we ran this shit, would lie a successful solution.

As a recovering Republican, I had become increasingly uncomfortable with "socially conservative" positions and the disconnect between other conservative positions and anything actually conservative.  And then Trump came along and revealed that everything was a bill of fucking goods.

 But it is in my nature to be the type of conservative person, which is going to extend to my politics, identified above in the 4th paragraph.

 

So, you're telling me that if I believe "that certain aspects of the Constitution are outmoded and could use some reworking, (but) am more hesitant about just trashing the whole thing" I'm a conservative??!!?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

 

[Bullneck 18987]

4 hours ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Thats from March.  Do you have a recent poll?  Mildly curious.

I think I had "today" in my search.  

 

Biden vs. Trump

Source		Date	Sample	Biden	Trump	Other
Poll Averages*				37.5%	51.5%	-
	Y2 Analytics	10/05/2020	1,214 LV ±2.8%	40%	50%	10%
	Hinckley-Deseret News	9/17/2020	1,000 LV ±3.1%	35%	53%	12%
	Hinckley-Deseret News	8/07/2020	1,000 RV ±3.1%	31%	50%	19%
	Y2 Analytics	5/26/2020	1,078 LV ±3%	41%	44%	15%
	Hinckley-Deseret News	4/29/2020	964 RV ±3.2%	32%	51%	17%
	Y2 Analytics	4/13/2020	1,266 LV ±2.8%	41%	46%	13%
	Hinckley-Deseret News	3/05/2020	1,000 LV ±3.1%	33%	50%	17%
	Hinckley-Deseret News	1/31/2020	1,017 RV ±3.1%	31%	49%	20%

 

[Hagbard Celine 10762]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Other than a few of the New Englanders, the founders absolutely did not believe in representative democracy in the way we think of it.  They wanted everything filtered though a variety of lens to ensure a formal ruling class could override the passions of the people.  That's why the Senate was not directly elected.  The electoral college. 3/5ths rule. All of these things were ways to reduce the amount of people participating in popular elections, and to ensure those that did looked and felt similarly to the established capital owning class.

As I've said before, Jefferson was horrified by the idea of universal male suffarage and the Virginia delegation was obsessed with preventing the large majority of the population in the north from imposing it's will on the mid atlantic.  That was fine by the slave lords in the south as well, who saw even in the late 1780s were all of this was going.

welp, Jefferson and Madison created the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Federalists to promote political equality, among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

[Hagbard Celine 10762]

7 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I wonder. If Mitt had broken completely and early from Trump. Had stuck to his guns consistently on everything, if that would've reduced that red percentage by just a little or if it would've climbed. Mitt, being the other senator and not Trump would give some of the (R) Utah  voters a little cover. I believe both senators are still in their terms this round, so maybe not and maybe the Trumpiness is just baked in.

Utah is a unique case.