Jump to content

Russia and American elections, now featuring radical republicans as co-stars


Pancho

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  That's the exact point.  And ZERO time "laughing" at the fucking fuckholes who do things like literally attempt to overthrow the government and "hang Mike Pence" and shit like that.  You couldn't make our point any better if you tried.

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Look at you pretending like you'd give the slightest of shits about the constitutionality of the electoral college, the filibuster (which was never meant to be used in its current , not that it matters to you), and the number of Supreme Court justices if they weren't currently favoring your side. You are so transparent, it's almost admirable.

Go search the posts.  I’ve been very clear and consistent on the idiocy of wanting to change those.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

So the 3 months that Trump, his team, and the GOP spent trying to overturn an election don't bother you? You understand that J6 was more than just the people you saw on TV storming the capital, right?

Actually, why even bother....

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

Which part did I imagine?

The violent assault on the Capitol?  Nope, real as shit.

Trump's absolute disdain for any legal rules and norms?  Nope, he's made that plain as day.

Trump's promise to be a dictator, and his billionaire backers LITERALLY saying that "freedom and democracy" are incompatible?  Nope, those things actually happened.

Active collusion with Russian disinformation campaigns by the MAGAsphere?  A fucking indictment just came down on that point.  It's undeniable.

You bypass all of that.  And when you ignore it/excuse it, it means you support it.  Which comes as absolutely no surprise here.

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

*also curious that billionaires straight up buying Supreme Court judges blatantly in front of ours eyes is no biggy. But trying to add judges to offset the influence of those billionaires, now THAT'S a problem.

And yeah, add this to the pile.  The REAL threat isn't flat-out purchasing SCOTUS judges....the REAL threat is discussing how to use existing legal processes to potentially update and revise the number of justices on the court.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It’s absolutely true I am less worried about morons acting out subsequent to the “summer of love” than people who are actually trying to change the Constitution, Senate structure and Senate rules.  
 

I wonder which of those things are a greater threat to “our democracy”?

Changing the senate, supreme court, and getting rid of the electoral college, all anti-democratic institutions, is threatening our democracy. 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The filibuster standing or not favors neither party intrinsically.

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?  No, it will be rail to rail into the abyss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Just because you imagine things while you wet the bed doesn’t make them real.

Read pages 3-8. Replace the word "Trump" with "Obama" if that helps you understand why this is problematic behavior for a CIC

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, elfenix said:

Changing the senate, supreme court, and getting rid of the electoral college, all anti-democratic institutions, is threatening our democracy. 

 

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Oh goody,

 

“Our republic”

 

you fucking happy?  

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The filibuster standing or not favors neither party intrinsically.

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?  No, it will be rail to rail into the abyss.

What the filibuster and the structure of the senate favor is minority rule. The filibuster makes an antidemocratic institution (the senate, which features both non-apportioned districts and overlapping terms, each if which is antidemocratic) even more antidemocratic. It should be done away with for that reason alone and I don't give a shit about what party it benefits. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Downplaying this is such a horrendous take.  Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died and the battlefield has changed because a subset of a U.S. political party stonewalled any military support for SIX MONTHS, reading the exact script these dipshits have been paid to produce.  If you thing there is anything resembling significant organic sympathy to Russia and opposition to helping Ukraine, then you might also be duped into accepting 100s of thousands of dollars from a mysterious benefactor with a LinkedIn and shitty PDF.  

Russians spend billions on this project because it actually does work, it is not a wasted investment.  They successfully got a U.S. political party to help them win a war against a friendly European nation.  

I haven’t and am not downplaying whatever has gone on with Russia and “conservative” podcasters. 
 

my participation in this thread started with my disdain for the literal piece of shit that shows up literally every 4 years and disappears for the subsequent 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

I haven’t and am not downplaying whatever has gone on with Russia and “conservative” podcasters. 
 

my participation in this thread started with my disdain for the literal piece of shit that shows up literally every 4 years and disappears for the subsequent 3.

The "Hugo's my spirit animal" thread is -> that away, stranger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The brass tacks behind the rest of it is, do you honestly believe that changes will singularly favor only one party in perpetuity?

I don't care. I do not believe the electoral college is the best way to pick a president (and, I know you guys hate hearing this, but I thought the same when I was hoping George W would win elections). I think it's insane that North Dakota has as many senators as California and Texas. It's okay to admit that our founders probably didn't see all possible futures.

You disagree. That's fine. But you're just using the slight possibility that it's ever changed--using the democratic system that we currently have in place to make those kind of changes--as hollow both sides justification to think how you think and vote how you vote. We both know it.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

What the filibuster and the structure of the senate favor is minority rule. The filibuster makes an antidemocratic institution (the senate, which features both non-apportioned districts and overlapping terms, each if which is antidemocratic) even more antidemocratic. It should be done away with for that reason alone and I don't give a shit about what party it benefits. 

It favors stability.  That is very important if you want to have an economy that funds all the leftist fantasies you all want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To be clear....you are MORE concerned about things that are being discussed in the context of....following the rule of law, and addressing within the rule of law (nobody is talking about executing SCOTUS justices to change the makeup of the court, for example -- just changing the number within existing legal mechanisms and processes), versus an entire political movement that says "fuck the rule of law," that is happy to attempt to overthrow the government by violence (and lauds as heroes the people who did so and promises to fucking PARDON them), promises to be a dictator on day one, and actively colludes with a hostile foreign power?

If that's how you break it down, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

dan levy comedy GIF by CBC

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It favors stability.  That is very important if you want to have an economy that funds all the leftist fantasies you all want.

No. That’s ahistorical nonsense. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either. I happen to like the historic filibuster, and the structure of the Senate, but our current reality is a spectacular example of how it can imperil the Republic when the minority party effectively controls a majority or plurality of states and seeks to impose its will nationally.
The other example was the 1850’s.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either. I happen to like the historic filibuster, and the structure of the Senate, but our current reality is a spectacular example of how it can imperil the Republic when the minority party effectively controls a majority or plurality of states and seeks to impose its will nationally.
The other example was the 1850’s.

Immutable fact #964: those who crow about the Constitution and originalism know and understand the absolute least about it.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. That’s ahistorical nonsense. And it has never facilitated stability, and it was not implemented for that purpose either

School away

or link to material.

 

sincerely interested 

 

**you edited 

 

my post was most specific to Senate structure and avoiding tyranny of majority 

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I think it's insane that North Dakota has as many senators as California and Texas. It's okay to admit that our founders probably didn't see all possible futures.

They absolutely understood this. Giving South Carolina (for example) equal representation in the Senate to Massachusetts despite was absolutely required for constitutional adoption, despite SC only having half as many residents, nearly half of whom were African slaves. 
 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

School away

or link to material.

 

sincerely interested 

 

**you edited 

 

my post was most specific to Senate structure and avoiding tyranny of majority 

Uh, Federalist 62?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Which makes the argument that the Senates structure isn’t stabilizing exactly how?

That it hasn’t been stabilizing in fact is a matter of the record. You’re conflating the rules of the Senate (cloture, filibuster) as they stand today with the structure of the senate.
But more importantly, stability wasn’t the point or purpose. The point was, explicitly, to mix proportional representation in the house with equal representation in the Senate to recognize what sovereignty remained to the states.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That it hasn’t been stabilizing in fact is a matter of the record. You’re conflating the rules of the Senate (cloture, filibuster) as they stand today with the structure of the senate.
But more importantly, stability wasn’t the point or purpose. The point was, explicitly, to mix proportional representation in the house with equal representation in the Senate to recognize what sovereignty remained to the states.

Thats all very sophisticated and I know you’re impressed with yourself but the fact of the matter is 

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution.htm

from your previously referenced federalist 62

On June 26, with a 7 to 4 vote, the delegates compromised and adopted six-year terms for the Senate. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison defended six-year terms for senators, insisting that six-year terms would have a stabilizing effect on the new national government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Thats all very sophisticated and I know you’re impressed with yourself but the fact of the matter is 

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution.htm

from your previously referenced federalist 62

On June 26, with a 7 to 4 vote, the delegates compromised and adopted six-year terms for the Senate. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison defended six-year terms for senators, insisting that six-year terms would have a stabilizing effect on the new national government

I mean, if you believe that making it harder to pass legislation=stability, sure. Fed 62 talked about it being an impediment to passing legislation. But at the end of the day it’s about sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

mean, if you believe that making it harder to pass legislation=stability, sure

What do you think having consistent laws, rules and regulations promotes, instability?

”Should we invest $50 million on a new manufacturing facility in Peoria?”

”boy, I don’t know the government is WAY to clear on land use, emissions standards, employment laws, and taxes”

said no one ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What do you think having consistent laws, rules and regulations promotes, instability?

”Should we invest $50 million on a new manufacturing facility in Peoria?”

”boy, I don’t know the government is WAY to clear on land use, emissions standards, employment laws, and taxes”

said no one ever

Come on man.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...